FRED LOCKLEY 

RARE WESTERN BOOKS 

4227 S. E. Statk St. 
PORTLAND. ORE. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



UNITE KS'ALISM 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 






PASTOR OF FIRST UNIVERSALIS! CHURCH, INDIANAPOLIS, IND. 



, i.ii*., 



AJNL» 

REV. J. H. LOZIER, 

PASTOR OF A8BURY M. E. CHURCH, INDIANAPOLIS s IND. 



MORRISON'S OPERA HALL, 

INDIANAPOLIS, IND., 

■On the evenings of July 1st, 3d, 5th, 8th, 10th and 12th, 1867. 



INDIANAPOLIS : 

PUBLISHED BY B. F. FOSTER. 

1867. 



\°\[Sv 
Via 4l> 



X*3 



INDIANAPOLIS: 
INDIANAPOLIS JOUBNAL PRINT 

1867. 



• ART VASHAW o 
MAGAZINE EXCHANGE 



PREFACE. 



In presenting to the public the Opera Hall Debate on Uni- 
versalism and Endless Punishment, I desire to make a few 
statements that may not be out of place in the preface to the 
work. At the time of the discussion, no arrangements were 
made for a full publication of the same. Hence though the 
matter was suggested subsequently by Mr. Lozier, I did not 
suppose it possible to collect all the material necessary to ren- 
der the discussion full and complete. Finding however at & 
later date, that the first three nights of the debate were taken 
down in full by a competent reporter, and that Mr. Lozier's 
speeches in the Journal on the last proposition, were made up 
from his own manuscripts; and believing, that with the aid of 
my own notes and references, we could approximate near a fair 
report, I communicated by letter with Mr. Lozier in response 
to one received from him, my desire for a personal consulta- 
tion upon the subject. As he was absent from the city most of 
the time after I wtote him I failed to see hfm; but he knew 
where to find me, and had he been desirous of treating me fairly 
in the matter, he would have granted me an interview. In the 
meantime he put to press what purports to be the Opera Hall 
Debate — a pamphlet which does me great injustice, giving but 
a mere abreviation of my speeches, while professing to give his 



IV PREFACE 

own in full. Hence at the urgent solicitation of my friends, I con- 
cluded to issue the debate in book form. The iirst three nights 
of the discussion are compiled from the notes of C. W. Stagg, 
Esq., one of the best phonogiaphers in the west. The last 
three from the report of the Journal, which was made up from 
Mr. Lozier's own manuscript, and from my own notes used on 
the occasion. So that Mr. Lozier is fully and fairly represented 
^B the work. The difference in length between Mr. Lozier's 
speeches and my own, may be accounted for in part, from the 
fact that my delivery is more rapid than his, and on the first 
night he failed to occupy his full time, by ten minutes. 

The discussion does not cover as much ground as I could 
have wished, owing to the limited time occupied on each even- 
ing, and yet I trust that the arguments presented will be fouud 
sufficiently full to induce a further inquiry on the part of &U 

who may read its pages. 

B. F. FOSTER. 



From the Indianapolis Journal of September 24th, 1867. 

A CARD. 

Injustice to Eev. Mr. Foster, and at his request, I desire to make the 
following statement : 

I attended the debate between Messrs. Foster and Lozier, on the first 
three evenings, and thinking it possible that it might be desirable to give 
the discussion to the public, I took down, in phonographic short hand, a 
verbatim report of all the speeches delivered on those evenings, being the 
entire debate on the first proposition. The debate on the second proposi- 
tion I did not attend. Mr. Foster applied to me two weeks since for that 
portion of the debate that was in my possession, and I sold him the whole, 
transcribed into long-hand manuscript. It is about three times as long as 
the corresponding portion of the debate published by Messrs. Downey &, 
Brouse. CHARLES W. STAGG. 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE DISPUTANTS, AS PUBLISHED 
IN THE COLUMNS OF THE INDIANAPOLIS DAILY JOURNAL. 



MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION. 

Indianapolis, May 6, 1867. 
The pastors of the Evangelical churches in the city, and also 
resident Evangelical Ministers will please remember the meet- 
ing of the Indianapolis Evangelical Ministerial Association 
at the rooms of the Y. M. 0. A., at three o'clock this afternoon.. 

J. H. Lozier, Secretary.- 



Indianapolis, May 7, 1867. 
To the Editors of the Journal: 

I see by the Journal, of yesterday, that there is an invitation 
in its columns for all Evangelical Ministers to attend a meeting, 
of the Ministerial Association in this city. Now I would re- 
spectfully ask what it takes to constitute an individual an 
Evangelical Minister. We have no account of any such min- 
isters in the New Testament. An Evangelist in the Savior's- 
time was one who was sound in the doctrines of the gospel. 
And such is the definition of the term in our best Dictionaries 
and Lexicons. But suppose a Catholic, Unitarian or Univer- 
salist were to make application for membership in the Minis- 
terial Circle, would, they be admitted? And. yet all these 



Tl CORRESPONDENCE. 

churches found tbeir doctrines upon the precepts and teachings 
of Christ, and accept his gospel as the foundation of their faith 
in a future existence. Can you give us any light on the sub- 
ject of our inquiry ? Universalist. 



Indianapolis, May 7, 1867. 
Mr. Editor: — In reply to a communication, signed "Uni- 
versalist," I take pleasure in stating that any minister of this 
city, who can, in good faith, sign the articles of association, 
can become a member of the Ministerial Association of this 
city. These articles are in possession of Mr. Lozier, Secretary 
of the Association, who will, no doubt, take pleasure in show- 
ing them to " Universalist." They are, in substance, the same 
as the articles of the Evangelical Alliance of Europe and 
America. J. H. w. t. 

President pro tern of Min. Association. 



THE MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION. 

Indianapolis, May 8, 1867. 
A communication appears in the Journal of Tuesday allu- 
ding to a call, published by myself as Secretary, for the assem- 
bling of the Evangelical ministers of the city, at the regular 
monthly meeting of our Ministerial Association. Your cor- 
respondent desires some "light" as to "what it takes to consti- 
tute an individual an Evangelical minister." If it is conve- 
nient for you to publish the following extract from our Con- 
stitution, you may render your correspondent an invaluable 
service: 

DOCTRINAL BASIS OF UNION. 

We propose no new creed ; but taking broad, historical and 
Evangelical Catholic grounds, we solemnly re-affirm and pro- 
fess our faith in all the doctrines of the inspired word of God, 
and in the consensus of doctrines as held by all true Christians 
from the beginning And we do more especially affirm our 
belief in the Divine human person, and atoning work of our 
■Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as the only sufficient source of 



CORRESPONDENCE. VU 

• salvatidri ; as the heart and soul of Christianity, and as the 
centre of all true Christian union and fellowship. Therefo^ 
with this explanation, and in the spirit of a just Christian lib- 
erality in regard to the minor differences of theological schools 
and religfous denominations, we also adopt as a summary of 
the consensus of the various evangelical Confessions of Faith, 
the articles and explanatory statements, set forth and agreed 
On by the Evangelical Alliance at its formation in London, 
September, 1846, and approved by the separate European and 
American organizations: which articles are as follows: 

1. The Divine Inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the 
Holy Scriptures. 

2. The right and duty of private judgment in the interpre- 
tation of the Holy Scriptures. 

3. The Unity of the Godhead, and the Trinity of the per- 
sons therein. 

4. The utter depravity of human nature in consequence of 
the Fall. 

5. The incarnation of the Son of God. His work of atone- 
ment for the sins of mankind, and his mediatorial intercession 
and reign. 

6. The justification of the sinner by faith alone. 

7. The work of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and sanc- 
tification of the sinner. 

8. The immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, 
the judgment of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ, with the 
eternal blessedness of the righteousness, and the eternal pun- 
ishment of the wicked. 

9. The divine institution of the Christian ministry, and 
the obligation and the perpetuity of the ordinances of baptism 
and the Lord's supper ; it being, however, distinctly declared 
that this brief summary is not to be regarded, in any for- 
mal or ecclesiastical sense, as a creed or confession, nor the 
adoption of it as involving an assumption of the right author- 
itatively to define the limits of Christian brotherhood, but sim- 
ply as an indication of the class of persons whom it is desira- 
ble to embrace within this Association; nevertheless we do 
cordially approve all the doctrines herein set forth, and sub- 



Vlll CORRESPONDENCE. 

scribe thereunto in good faith, without any mental reservation. 
To the above doctrinal basis of union the following minis- 
ters of the city have already subscribed, and others have sig- 
nified their purpose to do so at the earliest opportunity : N. 
A. Hyde, John Crozier, J. C. Smith, A. S. Rinnan, Charles H. 
Marshall, John A. Brouse, J. H. W. Stuckenburg, W. McK. 
Hester, George C. Heckman, Hanford A. Edson, John Scott, 
Elijah Whitten, Gilbert Small, Henry Wright, J. Y. R. Miller, 
William Armstrong, Henry Day, Herman Quinius and the 
undersigned. We accept the definition of "An Evangelist" 
given by "Universalist" — viz: "one sound in the doctrines of 
the gospel," but possibly we may differ as to what constitutes 
"soundness" in these doctrines. The above articles indicate 
what we believe to be the essential elements of Christianity. If 
" Universalist " or any minister of the denominations named 
by him, will subscribe to these articles, he can become a mem- 
ber John Hogarth Lozier, 

Secretary I. E. M. A. 



Indianapolis, May 10, 1867. 
To Rev. J. H. Lozier, Secretary I. E. M. A. 

Dear Sir: — In your reply to the communication of "Uni- 
versalist," you present us with the Articles of Association of 
the Evangelical Alliance formed in London, in September 
1846, and say " that if Universalist or any Minister of the de- 
nomination named by him will subscribe to these articles, he 
can become a member." Without wishing to enter into any 
newspaper controversy respecting the merits of the doctrines 
embodied in the articles referred to, I may be permitted to say 
that so far as my own and the Unitarian denomination are 
concerned, the doors of: the Association are forever closed. 
Embodied in these Articles are the doctrines of the Trinity, 
total depravity, and endless punishment, all of which doctrines 
we reject as unreasonable and anti Scriptural. • The only test 
required under the gospel dispensation, in order to constitute 
one a disciple of Christ, was faith in the Lord Jesus, and a prac- 
tice of his precepts and teachings. When the jailor propounded 



CORRESPONDENCE. 5X 

the question to Paul and Silas, " Sirs, what must I do to be 
saved?" the answer was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and 
thou 3halt be saved, and thy house." He was not required to 
assent to any of the doctrines specified in the "Articles of As- 
sociation " adopted by the Ministerial Circle. Hence w-e regard 
the test proposed by Paul and Silas as constituting one an 
evangelical Christian. The work of Christianity is positive and 
not negative, and consists in acts, and not simply professions. 
And we would be glad to co-operate with any body of men in 
doing good in the name of God and a common humanity. And 
we trust the day is not far distant when creeds will be forgot- 
ten, and sectarianism become obsolete; when men will unite 
upon the broad basis established by Christ and his Apostles. 

Before closing, as you have in your pulpit ministrations and 
otherwise, seen fit to criticise somewhat severely my peculiar 
form of faith, you will permit me to invite you to a public in- 
vestigation of its claims as a reasonable and scriptural system. 
For this purpose, I would propose a public discussion of four 
days, or six evenings, and would submit for your consideration 
the following questions : 

1st. Do the scriptures and reason teach the doctrine of the 
final holiness and happiness of all mankind? 

2d. Do the scriptures and reason teach the doctrine of the 
endless punishment of any part of the human family ? 

These questions will embody all the differences that exist be- 
tween the theology of our respective denominations. 

Hoping to hear from you at an early day, I am, as ever, 
Yours trulv, B. F. Foster. 



Indianapolis, May 11, 1867. 
To B. F- Foster, Pastor First Universalist Congregation, Indian- 
apolis : 

Dear Sir : — In your communication in the Journal of Fri- 
day, May 10th, after alluding to the "Articles of Association" 
of the Ministerial Association, of which I have the honor to 
be the Secretary, you invite me to a public discussion of two 
propositions, viz*. 



IK ^CORRESPONDENCE, 

1st. Do the Scriptures and reason teach the doctrine of 
the final holiness and happiness of all mankind? 

2d. Do the Scriptures and reason teach the doctrine of 
the endless punishment of any part of the human family? 

Your invitation is respectfully accepted. 

I believe, that by the usages common to such discussions, the 
challenged party determines certain details, not specified in the 
challenge. "We will discuss these questions as you suggest, for 
six evenings — Monday, Wednesday and Friday evenings — of 
two consecutive weeks, which I *will name when these details 
are agreed to. The discussion shall be held in some commo- 
dious church in this city, and shall -be opened on each evening 
with the Lord's Prayer, and closed with the Benediction with 
which the Scriptures. conclude. The debate shall proceed as 
follows : 

Each question shall occupy three evenings in the order 
named, on the first and second of which the affirmative and 
negative shall each be entitled to fifty minutes; and on the 
third evening the affirmative shall have thirty minutes to open, 
and twenty minutes to close after the negative. The definition 
of all controverted words and expressions, to be determined, 
by the standard Lexicons, such as are used in our State Uni- 
versity. Moderators to be chosen in the usual method. 

You remark, at the conclusion of your note, that you think 
the above questions involve all the points of difference between 
our respective denominations. I am unable to see anything in 
either of those questions involving the doctrine of the Trinity 
which you deny in the beginning of your note. 

Respectfully, John Hogarth Lozier. 



Indianapolis, May 12, 1867. 
To Rev. J. H. Lozier, Pastor Asbury Chapel, Indianapolis : 

Dear Sir: — Your communication in the Journal of May 
11th, is before me. The evenings you suggest, as well as the 
opening prayer and closing benediction each evening of the 
discussion, meets with my cordial approval. As to the time 
consumed on each evening, you will allow me to suggest two 
hours, beginning at precisely eight o'clock ; each disputant oc- 



CORRESPONDENCE. XI 

cupying thirty minutes alternately. On the third evening of 
each proposition, the affirmant to have a closing speech of 
twenty minutes. And for the purpose of presenting the mat- 
ter in a tangible form, I would submit for your consideration 
the following rules, in part already agreed to in your commu- 
nication, and in substance those usually adopted in theological 
discussions : 

1. The debate shall be held on Monday, Wednesday and 
Friday evenings of each week, for two consecutive weeks, be- 
ginning on Monday, May . 

2. Each disputant shall select one Moderator, and these two 
shall select a third, who shall constitute a Board of Modera- 
tors, who shall preside over the debate, and see that the rules 
are observed, as well as perform such other duties as usually 
devolve upon Moderators. 

3. The disputants shall occupy one half hour alternately, 
the debate beginning at eight o'clock and closing at ten o'clock. 
On the third evening the affirmant on each proposition shall be 
entitled to a closing speech of twenty minutes, but no new 
matter shall be introduced by the negative in the closing speech 

4. The debate shall be opened each evening with the Lord's 
Prayer, and closed with the benediction of the New Testament 
by persons selected by the Moderators. 

5. The books introduced into the debate by either disputant, 
shall be tree for the use and inspection of the other. 

6. The disputants are not to indulge in any personal reflec- 
tions towards each other; but shall treat each other with respect 
and courtesy. 

7. Neither disputant shall interrupt the other while speak- 
ing, except for the purpose of correcting any misapprehension 
of what he has said, or for explanation. 

8. The questions for discussion shall be as follows : 

1st. Do the Scriptures and reason teach the doctrine of the 
final holiness and happiness of all mankind? 

Mr. Foster affirms. 

2d. Do the Scriptures and reason teach the doctrine of the 
endless punishment of any part of the human family? 

Mr. Lozier affirms. 



Xll CORRESPONDENCE. 

I do not offer the foregoing rules because I am tenacious for 
their adoption, but simply as indicating what would be a fair 
and correct basis for a theological discussion. 

As to authorities our appeal must be to the Scriptures and 
reason, though the standard lexicons will doubtless be used by 
both parties in determining the meaning of original words. 

Believing that we shall have no difficulty in arranging the 
preliminaries, I shall select a Moderator, trusting that you will 
do the same— and would suggest a meeting of all the parties 
one evening this week r at such place as you may designate, to 
make the final' arrangements for the discussion. 

Kespectfully yours, B. F. Foster. 



Indianapolis, May 13, 1867. 
To B. F. Foster, Pastor First Universalist Congregation Indian- 
apolis: 

Dear Sir: — In response to your communication of yester- 
day, I have to say that I am glad that you say you are not 
tenacious for the adoption of the rules you suggest for the gov- 
ernment of the proposed discussion. I believe it is not cus- 
tomary for those who give the challenge, and who propose the 
questions to be debated, to insist upon prescribing'the time and 
mode and other details of the discussion. I am the more hap- 
py to learn that you will not press your views, because of the 
necessity I am under of insisting upon those expressed in my 
communication of Saturday, as to the following points: First, 
each disputant shall make but one speech upon the same even- 
ing (except as indicated by you in rule seventh), until the last 
evening for the discussion of each point, when the affirmant 
shall have twenty minutes to conclude the debate. As to the 
length of time each shall speak I am not very particular. I 
named fifty minutes as the limit, out of consideration for our 
auditors. My objection to alternating every thirty minutes is 
this: such a course involves needless confusion, and assumes 
more the semblance of a personal dispute than of a deliberate 
argument before a deliberative people. The other point upon 
which I insist is that u the definition of all controverted words- 
and expressions introduced in the debate shall be determined 



CORRESPONDENCE. XH1 

by the standard lexicons, such as are used in our State Univer- 
sity." My reason for insisting upon this is obvious: I am sat- 
isfied of my own inability to improve upon our standard lexico- 
graphers to an extent ihat would induce my hearers to abandon 
them and follow me; and I would submit that whatever may 
be your abilities in this respect, it would be ungenerous in you 
to lead me beyond the sight of our auditors, into the depths of 
the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, Hebraic and Chaldaic, and "drown" 
me there all alone. I would rather keep in sight of the peo- 
ple who are to judge between us. 

As I remarked in a former note, I will name the time when 
I shall be ready to enter upon this discussion, as soon as these 
preliminaries are settled. 

Respectfully, John Hogarth Lo.zier. 



Indianapolis, May 14, 1867. 
To Rev. J. H. Lozier, Pastor Asbury Chapel, Indianapolis : 

Dear Sir: — Yours of May 13th is before me, its contents 
noted, and I reply as follows : 

While it is usual for the challenged party to propose the 
main features of the discussion, it is also customary that mu- 
tual concessions and agreements should be made in arranging 
the details of the same. But as you are tenacious upon the 
subject, and insist upon having everything your own way, I 
am disposed to gratify you in this respect. While I am op- 
posed to making human authorities the standard of appeal in 
questions involving the destiny of immortal beings, I am nev- 
ertheless disposed to grant you all the prestige there is in favor 
of your doctrine, in the definition of words and phrases as 
given in the standard lexicons of the universities. 

The rules I suggested are, in substance, those adopted in all 
the theological controversies of which I have any knowledge; 
and it is the first time that a disputant has been disposed to 
make human authority the basis of a decision involving the 
ultimate destiny of human beings. 

You will understand me then as acceding to the terms of 
your communication of May 11th. You will, therefore, please 



XIV CORRESPONDENCE. 

name the time when the discussion is to begin, as well as sug- 
gest a time to arrange all the necessary preliminaries for the 
same. Respectfully yours, 

B. F. Eoster. 



Indianapolis, May 15,1867. 
To B. F. Foster, Pastor First Universalist Congregation, India- 
napolis : 

Dear Sir:— In response to yours of the 14th, I will name 
Monday evening, July 1st, as the time when, Providence per- 
mitting, I shall be in readiness to begin the proposed discus- 
sion. I shall have no two consecutive weeks of leisure before 
that time, owing to other invitations and engagements that will 
require my presence and engross my time here, and at various 
points distant from the city, up to that time. 

You say I " insist upon having everything my own way." 
In your challenge you gave the precise wording of the ques- 
tions for discussion. In the second note you presented seven 
"rules" which you desired should govern our discussion ; and 
now, because I insist upon adhering to two points previously 
named by myself, you seem a little fretted. A looker on might 
fancy that that " shoe" would best fit the " other foot;" but the 
other foot does not need it. Your talk about settling these 
questions by "human authority" sounds rather superfluous 
after one reads my proposition carefully. 

When I find time for a meeting to make final arrangements 
I will drop you a note. 

Respectfully, John Hogarth Lozier. 



Indianapolis, May 16, 1867. 
To Rev. J. H. Lozier, Pastor Asbury Chapel, Indianapolis : 

Dear Sir: — The time named in your communication of yes- 
terday, occurs during the hottest part of the season, as well 
as the shortest evenings. Besides it is holiday week, and 
would not likely be a desirable time to begin a discussion. As 
the question of human destiny is one paramount to all others, 



CORRESPONDENCE. XV 

$ trust you may be able to postpone other engagements and 
meet me at an earlier date. If you cannot do so, the Lord will- 
ing, I will meet you at the time named in your communica- 
tion. Trusting that a kind Providence will watch over us and, 
direct the pending investigation in such manner as shall best 
subserve the interests of truth, I am, as ever, 

Kecpectfully yours, B. F. Foster. 



Indianapolis, May 17, 1867. 
To Rev. B. F. Foster, Pastor First Universalist Church, Indian* 

apolis : 

Dear Sir: — In response to yours of the 16th, let me say 
that it would gratify both myself and a number of my friends, 
if this debate could occur at an earlier day, but during the last 
week of this month, Providence permitting, I shall be in at- 
tendance at the Sabbath School Convention of my Conference 
at Greensburgh. During the first week in June, I shall be at 
the State Sabbath School Convention at Lafayette. During 
the second week, I shall be in attendance upon the Grand Camp 
of the Host of Temperance in this city. During the third 
week I am to deliver an address before one of the Literary 
Societies at the Commencement of the Ohio State University, 
and during the fourth week I am to attend the Commencement 
Exercises of the Asbury University, being one of the Board of 
Visitors. So you see I can begin no sooner. You object to 
July 1st, it being a " holiday season." If you think it will not 
damage your cause to postpone, I will postpone it two weeks, 
or until any other suitable time, provided it will not interfere 
with my church meetings. As to the "hot weather," we can 
obviate any bad effects thereof by keeping cool ourselvesf 
and counseling our hearers to follow our example. If a July 
heat has any terrors for mankind, what a sorry time is ahead 
of those who shall land in the place to which allusion is made 
in Kevelations, twentieth chapter, tenth and fifteenth verses — 
'< Where the beast and the false prophet " ara to test, the: 
question that some people in this world try to hoodwink their 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



fellow beings about I For my paH, I intend not only to avoid 
that locality, but shall teach others to do so, the Lord being my 
helper. Respectfully yours, 

John Hogarth Lozier. 



Indianapolis, May 18, 1867. 
To Rev. J. H. Lozier, Pastor Asbury Chapel, Indianapolis: 

Dear Sir: — Let it be understood, then, that we shall meet, 
Providence permitting, on the first Monday in July, as I am 
opposed to any later postponement of the discussion. As to the 
lake of fire alluded to in your communication, it will be time 
enough to determine its location and temperature when we 
meet in July. As I have already intimated, I had no design, 
when I wrote my first letter, of entering into a newspaper con- 
troversy on the subject: You will, therefore, pardon me for 
not attempting a criticism upon the latter part of your 
•epistle. Respectfully yours, 

B. F. Foster. 



RULES OF DEBATE. XV11 

RULES OF DEBATE 

AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 

Rev. B. F. Foster and Kev. J. H. Lozier hereby 
agree upon the following rules and regulations, by which they 
are to be governed in the discussion of the theological ques- 
tions hereinafter stated: 

1st. The discussion shall be under the direction of three 
Moderators, one to be chosen by each party, and the third by 
the two so selected. 

2d. Mr. Foster selects Eben W. Kimball, Esq., Mr. Lozier 
selects William H. Hay, Esq.; and Messrs. Kimball and Hay 
select Judge Solomon Blair, of the Marion Court of Common 
Pleas, as Chairman of the Board of Moderators. 

3d. The discussion shall be held in Morrison's Opera Hall, 
upon Monday, Wednesday and Friday evenings, July 1st, 3d, 
5th, 8th, 10th and 12th, and shall commence each evenrag 
promptly at eight o'clock. 

4th. The questions for discussion shall be : 

First. Do the Scriptures and reason teach the doctrine of 
the final holiness and happiness of all mankind? 

Mr. Foster affirms. 

Second. Do the Scriptures and reason teach the doctrine of 
the endless punishment of any part of the human family? 

Mr. Lozier affirms. 

5th. The discussion shall continue for three evenings upon 
each question. Upon Monday, July first, Mr. Foster will 
speak for fifty minutes, and be followed by Mr. Lozier for the 
same time. Upon Wednesday, July third, the same order and 
time will be allowed. Upon Friday, July fifth, Mr. Foster 
will speak thirty minutes, Mr. Lozier fifty minutes, and Mr. 
Foster twenty minutes in reply. Upon Monday, Wednesday, 
and Friday, July 8th, 10th and 12th, the same course will be 
adopted, and the same time allowed, only Mr. Lozier shall have 
the opening each evening, and on the last, the reply. 

2 



XV111 RULES OF DEBATE. 

6th. The debate shall be opened every evening witft the 
Lord's Prayer, and be closed with the benediction of the New 
Testament, by persons selected by the Moderators. 

7th. The books introduced into the debate by either dispu- 
tant shall be free for the use and inspection of the other. 

8th. The definition of all controverted words and expres- 
sions, shall be determined by the Standard Lexicons, such as 
are used in our State University. 

9th. The disputants shall not indulge in any personal re- 
flections toward each other, but shall treat each other with re- 
spect and courtesy. 

10th. Neither disputant shall interrupt the other while 
speaking, except for the purpose of correcting any misappre- 
hension of what he has said, or for explanation, or to call the 
other to order. Such interruptions shall not exceed five 
minutes. 

11th. No manifestation of applause or dissent shall be in- 
dulged in by the audience. 

12th. There will be no vote taken upon the merits of the 
discussion. 

13th. The Moderators shall enforce the foregoing rules and 
regulations. 

B. F. FOSTER, 
J. H. LOZIER* 



FIRST NIGHT 



Ppopositjon. Do the Scriptures and reason teach the doctrine of the 
final holiness and happiness of all mankind ? 



MK. FOSTER'S FIRST SPEECH. 

i 
Gentlemen Moderators : 

Respected Auditors: 

Under the blessings of a kind Providence, we 
have assembled for the investigation of one of the 
most thrilling and interesting subjects that can 
possibly engage the attention of human beings — a 
subject involving the destiny of a world of imr 
mortals ! 

When we look at man, and see how " fearfully 
and wonderfully he is made," and witness the 
astonishing powers and capacities of his mind, we 
realize somewhat the importance of the subject 
involving his future and final destiny. And I con? 
fess that I approach the threshold of this investiga- 
tion with feelings of profound awe, and fully 
realize the weakness and inadequacy of my powers 
to do it that justice which its magnitude would seem 
to demand ; and I humbly invoke the aid of the 
Divine Being in my labors upon this occasion. 



20 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

I have not the vanity to suppose that I shall 
succeed in convincing this vast assembly of the 
truth of my doctrine — or that I shall be able, in 
the course of this discussion, to remove all the 
prejudice that has been brought to bear upon my 
sentiments ; and yet I fondly trust and believe 
that I shall be able to impress your minds in such 
manner, that you will be led to look more charita- 
bly upon us as a denomination, and be willing to 
grant, that if we are not evangelical^ that we still 
belong to the same common family, and are ten- 
derly cared for by the same loving and kind 
Father ! 

Were this earth our abiding place — were our 
pathway continually strewn with flowers of happi- 
ness and peace — did the current of life flow 
smoothly on at all times, there might be a plea for 
indifference to questions affecting our future des- 
tiny. But when the stern realities of life open 
upon us — when we awake to a consciousness of 
the fact that " we are passing away" — that here 
we have no "continuing city" — that" our days are 
spent as a tale that is told" — that time, in its hur- 
ried march, is fast bearing us to the shadowy fu- 
ture — how big with moment becomes the question, 
" Whither ? ah ! whither are we going ?" To the 
land of the blest, the home of our loved ones — the 
dwelling place of the " spirits of the just made per- 
fect" — where sin, disease and death are unknown ? 
Or is this spirit, created in the image of its Maker, 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 21 

to be banished forever from his presence, to dwell 
eternally in regions of woe unutterable, and mis- 
eries indescribable ? Before this question, all 
others sink into insignificance. 

And it is with no small degree of pleasure that 
I enter upon the work before me, from the fact that 
I am to defend a doctrine that is congenial with; 
all the better feelings of the human heart — that 
has formed a conspicuous part in the prayers of 
the good, wise and pious in all ages of the world. 
A doctrine which meets with a cordial response 
from every holy impulse of the soul. It is a pleasing 
task that I am permitted to stand before you as the 
advocate of God's universal and impartial love and 
goodness, and to present the fullness of that love 
in its consummation through Christ, as the Savior 
of the world ! To point you through the promises 
and purposes of God, to the time when the last 
erring wanderer of humanity shall be reclaimed,, 
and God himself be " all in all !" 

And I confess, my friends, that in one respect, 
at least, I have an advantage over my opponent, 
who is shortly to follow me. While he may con- 
tend with all the eloquence of which he is master, 
and with all the powers of a well disciplined mind, 
for the negative of the proposition, yet he desires 
from the very bottom of his heart that it may 
prove true — nay, it is the burden of his prayers 
that all may be saved, and come to the knowledge 
of the truth ! Thus, while his head and creed may 



22 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

be against us, his heart and prayers are with us. 
While, on the other hand, though he will doubtless 
labor earnestly and hard to prove that some one will 
be damned, yet the sentiment finds not an accord- 
ant string in his heart. He cannot pray, even, that 
his doctrine may prove true. Though he thinks it 
is true, he still wishes and desires that it may prove 
false. He desires the salvation of the world, and 
if he had the power, I should not fear much to trust 
the matter in his hands, weak and fallible as his 
judgment may be. 

Another remark or two of a general character, 
and I shall proceed directly to the subject under 
discussion. As my peculiar doctrine and faith, 
touching the final destiny of the human race, is the 
topic of debate, it may not be out of place, that 
I request of you thus early, to lay aside your pre- 
conceived opinions and impressions concerning it, 
which may be the result of a misapprehension of 
its claims, or a false estimate of its teachings. I 
know full well the force of education in fastening 
upon the mind ideas, which, however erroneous, 
time can scarcely efface. And I am also aware 
that my doctrines have been held in utter abhor- 
rence by the masses of the so called religious world, 
for a long time. But such impression, I am satis- 
fied, is the result more of pulpit teachings, and the 
doctrines of the creed, than from any clear con- 
victions upon the subject, drawn from either reason 
or revelation. I trust, therefore, that those who 



ON UNIVERSALISM, 23 

honor me with a hearing upon this occasion, will 
not allow their prejudices to decide the present 
issue, but will be governed bf the testimony pre- 
sented, and the facts adduced. Let these be 
weighed well in the balance, and if found wanting, 
reject them, and discountenance them by all fair 
and honorable means. 

It is my desire that during this discussion, no 
expression may fall from my lips void of christian 
courtesy, or that I shall have cause to regret hav- 
ing used when the debate shall have terminated. 
I have no other purpose in view in engaging in 
this investigation, than to advance what I conceive 
to be the plain and unvarnished truths of the Bible. 
Having full confidence in the truth of my doctrines, 
of their reformatory and happifying effect upon the 
mind diseased by sin, and led astray by error ; and 
believing them to be in harmony with both reason 
and revelation, I have consented to become their 
humble exponent. He, who can see the heart, and is 
fully acquainted with all its workings, knoweth that 
the desire for what I conceive to be the truth, alone 
has prompted me to engage in this discussion. 
And should I be successful in establishing beyond 
the possibility of refutation, the doctrines I fondly 
cherish, I shall attribute such success to the power 
and omnipotence of truth, rather than to any par- 
ticular merit or skill that I may manifest in their 
presentation. 

Having said thus much of a general and personal 



24 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

nature, I shall now proceed with the argument* 
And here in the outset, it may be well to lay down 
certain rules of interpretation, by which we shall 
be governed in the pending controversy : 

First — The Bible is a revelation from God to 
man, and as such it must be consistent and har- 
monious in all its parts. If, then, I can establish 
the truth of my proposition from any one testi- 
mony, or given number of testimonies, there is no 
other part of the sacred volume, which, when 
rightly construed and interpreted, will contradict 
the sentiment. So that it will not suffice for Mr* 
Lozier to affirm an opposite doctrine as true, 
which stands directly opposed to the testimonies 
we shall adduce. We shall expect him, therefore, 
to come right up to the work, and attempt to show 
at least, that our arguments are not sound, logical, 
and conclusive, and that the passages under con- 
sideration, teach some other doctrine than that we 
are laboring to establish. 

Second — When any portion of scripture is of 
doubtful import, its meaning must be settled by 
reference to the character of the author, and the 
idiom of the age and language in which it was 
written. The celebrated Home says : " The 
whole system of revelation must be explained so 
as to be consistent with itself. When two pas- 
sages appear to be contradictory, if the sense of 
one can be clearly ascertained, in such case that 
must regulate our interpretation of the other." 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 25 

I now proceed directly with the argument. My 
first argument is based on the Divine Paternity — 
the nature and character of God, and on his rela- 
tion to the human family. While we are assured 
that he is the Creator of all, and has made of one 
blood all the nations of men, the fact is equally 
true, and susceptible of demonstration, that he is 
likewise the Father of all. Throughout the scrip- 
tures of divine truth, and particularly in the New 
Testament, God is described to be a wise, good,, 
and affectionate Father. His love for his offspring 
is represented to us as far exceeding, infinitely, that 
of an earthly parent. This doctrine forms the 
chief characteristic, as it does the brightest glory of 
the gospel of the Son of God. 

That God is the Father of all, the scriptures of 
divine truth abundantly testify. In the book of 
the prophet Malachi, chap. ii. 10, we have a strong 
testimony upon this point: " Have we not all one 
Father ? Hath not one God created us ?" Paul's 
beautiful response to the Athenian philosophers, 
as he stood upon Mars' Hill, Acts xvii. 26-29, in- 
clusive, is eloquent with the same great thought: 
" And hath made of one blood all nations of men 
for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath 
determined the times before appointed, and the 
bounds of their habitation ; that they should seek 
the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and 
find him, though he be not far from every one of 



26 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



us. For in him we live and move and have our 
being; as certain also of your own poets have said, 
For we are also his offspring." Ephesians iv. 
6 : " One God and Father of all, who is above 
all, and through all, and in you all." 1st Corinthi- 
ans, viii. 6 : u But to us there is but one God the 
Father, of whom are all things." Ephesians iii. 
14-15 : " For this cause I bow my knees unto the 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the 
whole family in heaven and earth is named." In 
Hebrews xix. 9, he is called " The Father of 
spirits." That model prayer of our Savior also 
begins on this wise-: " Our Father which art 
in heaven" — not " my Father," nor " your Father," 
but " Our Father." He is the Father of the 
whole human race. 

Such is the relation that God bears to man — 
that of Father to the child. Nor does this rela- 
tionship originate in a law or custom that may be 
severed at the discretion of the parties. It is a tie 
of nature, and hence cannot be destroyed. God 
will sustain this relationship to the human family 
as long as he himself shall exist. In the formation 
-of this tie which binds man to God, he had no 
agency, nor does he possess a power by which he 
oan sever it. Wherever you find a being bearing 
the impress of God's hand, there you find a child 
of God. No matter how far down the steeps of 
crime he may have gone — no matter how far he 



. ON UNIVERSALISM. 27 

may have wandered in the wilderness of sin — no 
matter what may be his moral condition, he is still, 
legitimately, a child of God, (though not an obe- 
dient child,) and an object of paternal solicitude. 

That there is a scriptural sense in which some 
are children of God and some are not — a moral 
and scriptural sense — we are fully aware. Those 
who obey God, who walk in the light of his com- 
mandments — are characteristically his. They en- 
joy a nearness of relationship to which the disobe- 
dient are entire strangers. The word children in 
this spiritual sense is variously employed by the 
sacred writers. Professor Stuart, of Andover 
College, now deceased, has the following criticism 
on this point : " Every kind of relationship or re- 
semblance, whether real or imaginary — every kind 
of connection is characterized (in the Bible) by 
calling it the son of that thing to which it stands 
related, or with which it is connected." Thus, a 
peaceable man is called the " son of peace 11 — one 
who sympathises with the unfortunate, the " son 
of consolation" — those who disobey are called 
the " children of disobedience" Ephesians v. 6. 
Those who are wise, the " children of wisdom" — 
those who are full of faith, the "children of 
promise ; " and in accordance with the same 
scripture usage, those who love God with all the 
heart — those who imitate God, obey his commands, 
and walk in the light of his precepts, are called the 
" children of God!" But this does not militate 



28 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

against the great fact that God is the Father of all, 
in the sense contended for in the proposition. 
The fact that the obedient are in this peculiar 
sense the " children of God," does not prove that 
in some sense the disobedient are not the children 
of God also. The fact that a portion of our race 
are alienated from him by disobedience, does not 
prove that they are not his by creation, and 
objects of his love and protection. 

We have abundant testimony that God recog- 
nizes men as his children, even while subjects of 
sin and disobedience; but one or two must suffice 
on the present occasion. In Hebrews xii. 5, 6, we 
we read, " Ye have forgotten the exhortation which 
speaketh unto you as unto children. My son, des- 
pise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint 
when thou art rebuked of him. For whom the 
Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son 
whom he receiveth." Here we have the design of 
chastisement in the divine government beautifully 
set forth. It is no evidence that God does not love 
an individual when he chastens him; on the con- 
trary, it is one of the strongest proofs of God's love 
to man. Again, in Jeremiah iii. 21, 22, we read : 
" A voice was heard from the high places, weeping 
and supplications of the children of Israel; for they 
have perverted their way, and they have forgotten 
the Lord their God. Return,^ backsliding chil- 
dren, and I will heal your backslidings." Thus 
you will see, that while God chastens and punishes 



ON UN1VERSALISM. 29 

men for their sins, still he calls them children ! So 
Paul, when speaking to the idolatrous Athenians, 
says : " We are also his offspring." The love of 
God for. his children is the same in nature as the 
love of earthly parents for theirs ; it only differs in 
degree, being greater, more enduring and infinite, 
"While the love of an earthly parent is susceptible 
of change, and governed by mutations of an earthly 
nature, God's love is eternal and unchanging — as 
far reaching as the wants of universal humanity ! 
And while the love of man is bounded in its sphere 
of operation, for the want of means to accomplish 
its aims and purposes, that of God is subject to no 
contingence that can in the least affect its benevo- 
lent designs, in proof of our position, and that we 
are fully warranted in our comparison between the 
divine and human love, we have numerous illustra- 
tions in the teachings of our Savior — the frequent 
contrasts by which he represents to our minds the 
superior depth and fulness of God's love towards his 
children. In fact, we would hardly appreciate in 
any adequate degree, the love of our heavenly 
Father, were it not for the opportunity afforded us 
of viewing it in contrast with the love of a kind and 
affectionate earthly parent. In Matthew vii. 9, 
Jesus says : " What man is there of you, whom, if 
his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? or if he 
ask a fish, will he give him a serpent ? If ye, then, 
being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your 
children, how much more shall your Father which is 



30 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

in heaven give good things to them that ask him ?" 
Is it not evident from this testimony, that the love of 
our heavenly Father, as portrayed by the Savior, is 
the same in nature as that of a good earthly Father, 
differing from it only in degree ?" " How much 
more shall your Father which is in heaven, give 
good things to them that ask him!" Again, we 
have a strong and affecting comparison in Isaiah 
xlix. 15 : " Can a woman forget her sucking child, 
that she should not have compassion on the son of her 
womb ? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not for- 
get thee." Even the love of a mother for the babe 
that nestles in her bosom, falls infinitely short of 
the love of our heavenly Father. While the one 
is fading and transitory, the other is as enduring as 
the eternal throne. We have all had mothers, and 
can realize the full fruition of a mother's love. 
What will not the mother do for her child ? What 
privations and sacrifices will she not undergo in his 
behalf? Though fortune may frown upon him — 
though the world in its want of charity may turn a 
deaf ear to his entreaties — the mother is ever ready 
to shield and protect him from danger and harm. 
Even though her boy may have descended to the 
lowest round upon the ladder of crime, and have 
forieited his life upon the scaffold, even there a 
mother's love will follow him, and upon bended 
knee will she implore the benedictions of heaven 
upon him [ Aye, place the immortal interests of 
her children, in her hands, and who can doubt the 



ON UNIVERSALISM* 31 

result? Would she not confer upon them the 
highest possible state of happiness and enjoyment? 
Is there a mother here to-night, who, divested of 
prejudice, would not readily acknowledge, that if 
she had the power, she would gladly bless and 
save not only all the members of her own little 
family circle, but the entire universe ? Is there a 
child here, that would not feel perfectly safe in 
committing its eternal interests into a mother's 
hands ? There can be but one response to these 
inquiries — but one answer given — and that in 
unison with our holy faith. And will the God of 
heaven do less for his children ? Give the mother 
power to bring back her prodigal son into tjic path 
of safety and of rectitude, and how quickly she 
would do it ! What hardships would she not 
endure that she might reclaim her sinful, erring 
child ! Where did she get that little drop of love ? 
Where is the fountain whence it springs ? Does 
it not issue from the great ocean of divine love — 
the uncreated source of all good, and of all excel- 
lence ? Place the eternal interests of all our race 
in a mother's hands, and all would be saved. She 
has love enough to save a world if she had the 
power. Is not God as good as that mother? 
Will he not do as much for his children as that 
poor, weak, frail being would do for hers? Can 
the little running stream do more than the great 
and mighty fountain from whence it issued; or can 
the effect exceed, the cause ? Will God cast off 



32 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

his children forever, and abandon them to a state 
of endless wretchedness ? No! no! Strong as is 
the mother's love, far as it extends, mighty as its 
influence is, God's love is stronger and more endur- 
ing. While there is a possibility that the mother 
may forget the darling of her bosom, God has de- 
clared that he will never leave nor forsake his 
children; that though he will certainly punish them 
if they transgress his laws, yet he will not utterly 
cast them off, nor suffer his love in their behalf to 
fail. Says Jehovah, by the mouth of David in 
Psalms lxxxix. 30-34, " If his children forsake 
my law and walk not in my judgments ; if they 
break my statutes and keep not my commandments, 
then will I visit their transgressions with a rod, 
and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my 
loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, 
nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant 
will I not break, nor alter the thing that has 
gone out of my lips." God will visit trangressors 
with a rod, and their iniquity with stripes. But 
what kind of a rod is this to be? The brother 
thinks it is to be the iron rod of endless tor* 
ment. But what does God say ? " If they for- 
sake my law 1 will punish them" Notice that ex- 
pression — there is to be no escape. " I will visit 
them with a rod and their iniquity with stripes; 
nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not utterly 
take from him." The sinner is to be punished, but 
■mercy is to follow him still, and God will not cease 
to regard him with paternal solicitude. 



ON UNIVERSALIS^. 33 

And yet again, we find the same sentiment em- 
bodied in the words of Isaiah lvii. 16 : '• For 
I will not contend forever, neither will I be al- 
ways wroth, for the spirit should fail before me, 
and the souls which I have made." What is 
the force of this language ? God tells them 
that he will not contend forever — that he will 
not always be wroth, and he assigns the rea- 
son : " For the spirit would fail before meP It is 
the spirit of man that he is speaking of. The soul 
of man itself, with all its powers, created as it is 
for immortality, could not support through endless 
ages the fiery fierceness of the wrath of God. The 
universal tendency of suffering is to destroy. 
Physical suffering consumes the vital energies of 
the body ; mental agony wears away the powers 
of the mind. But how infinitely do the most sub- 
tle torments that human malice and ingenuity ever 
framed, fall below the torments of a soul subjected 
eternally to the wrath of God! Hence the lan- 
guage of Jehovah, " The spirit would fail before 
me" — the nature of man would sink beneath the 
load, and annihilation would follow. 

I now leave the argument on the divine paternity, 
with the remark, that I regard it as one of the 
strongest that can be adduced in favor of the propo- 
sition. All the ingenuity and sophistry of my op- 
ponent can never overthrow it. Never, until he 
can prove that some are not the children of God, 
were not created in the divine image, are 4iot 
3 



34 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

overshadowed with the love and care of heaven r 
can he destroy in the least the force of our argu- 
ment. 

My second argument is predicated upon the love 
of God. My proposition is, that God's love is in- 
finite, and extends over all the creatures of his 
forming hand, and that finally it will subdue and 
reconcile the world to him ; that as a God of love r 
he never would have created human beings for any 
other purpose than to make them holy and happy. 
The following testimonies we submit as the basis 
of our argument: 1st John, iv. 16, "We have 
known and believed the love that God hath to us, 
God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth 
in God and God in him." Paul also calls him a 
God of love. Our next testimony is John in. 
16, 17 : " God so loved the world that he gave his 
only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on him 
should not perish, but have everlasting life. For 
God sent not his son into the world to condemn 
the world, but that the world through him might 
be saved I" Romans v. 8 : " God commendeth his 
love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, 
Christ died for us." Eph. ii. 4, 5: "But God, 
who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith 
he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath 
quickened us together with Christ." 

Thus the Bible, throughout, speaks of God's 
love for his creatures. The fact that they are sin- 
ners, or have become alienated from him by 



ON UNIVERSALIS*!. 35 

wicked works, does not deprive them of that love, 
nor cause it to slumber. He loves them still with 
a deathless love — a love that knows no diminution 
or change. Being, himself, immutable, and un- 
changable, his love must ever remain the same 
through time and eternity ! The whole scheme of 
the gospel was the production of infinite love. It 
was the love of God that brought the Savior 
down to this earth, to bring to light that inheri- 
tance which is "incorruptible, undefiled, and that 
fadeth not away." The whole human family 
stood in need of this interposition of God's love, as 
is evident from the declaration of the scriptures, 
that " all have sinned and come short of the glory 
of God" — that they have "all gone out of the way" — 
they " have altogther become filthy" — " there is none 
thatdoeth good, no, not one ;" that man was " made 
subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of 
Him who hath subjected the same in hope." Uni- 
versal experience fully corroborates and confirms 
the account here given of man's sinfulness and 
imperfection. And when we view him as thus 
frail, fallible and mortal, we discover the wisdom, 
love, and benevolence of the Creator in giving his 
Son as a ransom for the sins of the world — to re- 
deem man from this corrupt and sinful state, and 
introduce him into the glorious liberty of the 
children of God. 

The love of God, then, was the originating 
cause of man's redemption, and we lay it down as 



36 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

a proposition that cannot be successfully contro- 
verted, that man is now, and ever has been, the 
creature of God's love, and that this love will re- 
main unchangably the same through all the 
cycles of eternity, bringing finally, the most in- 
corrigible sinner to submit himself to its peaceful 
reign. A God of love would not create intelligent 
beings but for happiness. In their creation he 
must have had some end in view, and that end 
must have been in harmony with the divine attri- 
bute of infinite love. 

Go back, if you please, and contemplate God as 
he existed before the world was — before the crea- 
ative power had ever been put forth. Love was no 
less an attribute of God's nature then than now 
It was as vast, as eternal, as immutable. Hence 
the creation of the world was an act of the Al- 
mighty in full accordance with divine love. En- 
shrouded, as he was, from all eternity, with the 
light and glory of his own perfections, there was 
no necessity compelling him to create. The cre- 
ative power was put forth, that he might have 
other objects on which to bestow the riches of 
his love. Hence, when man was formed in his 
own image, and ushered into being, he was the 
production of infinite love. The Creator's omnip- 
otent energies were put forth in accordance with 
his own good will and pleasure. This conclusion 
~is fully established by the testimony of John, in 
»Revelations iv. 11 : " Thou art worthy, O, Lord, 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 37 

to receive glory, and honor, and power, for thou 
has created all things, and for thy pleasure they are 
and were created." if all beings were created for y 
God's pleasure, will he take pleasure in tormenting 
any part of them endlessly ? Let my friend make 
a note of this, and answer it. 

From the beginning, therefore, the destiny of all 
beings was fixed in accordance with the dictates of 
infinite love. When it is said that God reigns, it 
it is but an assurance that love reigns. When it 
is is said that " he doeth his will in the armies of 
heaven and among the inhabitants of earth," it is 
in substance saying, that love does its will in 
heaven and upon earth. From the fact, then, that 
God is a being of love, it is a self-evident conclu- 
sion, that love will ultimately triumph — that all 
will finally be subdued and reconciled to the will 
of God, and be happy. The celebrated author of 
Proverbial Philosophy, Tupper, says of this con- 
stituent element of the divine nature : " Love is \ 
the weapon which Omnipotence reserved to con- 
quer rebel man, when all the rest had failed. Rea- 
son he parries; fear, he answers, blow to blow; 
future interests he meets with present pleasure. 
But love, that sun against whose beams winter 
cannot stand ; that soft, subduing slumber, which 
wrestles down the giant — there is not one human 
creature in a million — not a thousand men in all 
earth's huge quintillion, whose clay heart is hard- 
ened against love !" 



38 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

Suppose that my opponent could even prove that 
all are not brought to obey God in this life, does 
it follow, as an inevitable conclusion, that they 
never will be brought to obey and love him ? Are 
we hence to infer that man can go beyond the reach 
of God's love? Is there a narrow isthmus bound- 
ing time and eternity, and beyond which God's 
love can never go? Has God placed limits and 
bounds to the operations of his love ? Where is 
the warrant for such an assumption ? What is 
there in the nature of the soul that will prevent 
God's love from reaching it in and beyond the res- 
urrection? Why does the brother find it so diffi- 
cult to convert sinners now ? Is it anything more 
than the unfavorable circumstances by which they 
are surrounded? Here they are encompassed in 
the habiliments of mortality, exposed to a thou- 
sand temptations and trials which are the offspring 
of an earthly organization. Here they are " made 
subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him 
who hath subjected the same in hope." Why, then, 
may not the soul be changed after death, when it 
ahall be freed from all these mortal cumbrances ? Is 
there any law, of which we have any knowledge, 
which can prevent the love of God from reaching the 
soul in the future world ? God will be the same to 
the soul in the next world that he is in this ; the same 
paternal, gracious, merciful, and forgiving God, for 
he changes not. Jesus can have the same access 
to the heart of the sinner there that he has here, 



ON UNIVERSALIS*!. OV 

Will Mr. Lozier show us the dividing line that is 
to separate God's love from his creatures ? When 
the veil of ignorance is removed from before the 
mortal vision — when man shall see God as he 
is — enshouded in the light and glory of his own 
perfections — when he shall see, and realize the 
height, and depth, and length, and breadth of the 
love of God, the hardest heart will relent, and the 
most obdurate sinner will cry " Abba, Father; thy 
will, not mine be done!" Says Paul, in Romans, 
viii. 38-39 : " For I am persuaded that neither life, 
nor death, nor angels, nor principalities, nor pow- 
ers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor 
height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be 
able to separate us from the love of Christ Jesus 
our Lord !" Man is yet to be brought to realize 
God's love, and to render him the worship and grati- 
tude of a loving heart. Thus, in God's own due 
time, even " in the dispensation of the fulness of 
times," will infinite love work out the redemption 
of universal humanity. 

My third argument is based upon the Foreknowl- 
edge of God. My proposition is, that God fore- 
knows all things ; which being the case, and God 
being, at the same time, infinitely holy and good 
he never would have created a single soul, without 
designing the holiness and happiness of that soul* 
Hence, we argue, from the fact that God foreknows 
an event, that it will positively take place. 

That God foreknows all things is abundantly 



4CT THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION^ 

testified to in the Scriptures. The Apostle says, in* 
Acts xv. 18 : " Known unto God all his works from 
the beginning of the world." Again, we read in Job 
xxiv. 1 : " Times are not hidden from the Al- 
mighty." And yet again, in Isaiah xlvi. 9, 10 : 
" I am God, and there is none like me, declar- 
ing- the end from the beginning, and from an- 
cient times the things that are not yet done, saying^ 
my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my 
pleasure." God, therefore, possessing infinite 
foreknowlege, there can be with him no such 
thing as succession of ages or times. In Isaiah 
ivii. 15 verse, he is declared to be the " High 
and Holy One that inhabiteth eternity." All is 
one eternal now to him. All events are as present 
with him now as they ever will be — aye, were as 
present in the dawn of creation, ere yet the creative 
energies of his almighty arm had put been forth. 
The future of all beings lay unfolded to his view. 
Every event, down to the latest period in a world's 
history, was scanned with the eye of omniscience, 
nor has he permitted any contingence to arise that 
will thwart his purposes of love and goodness, 
God being infinitely wise, good, and holy, would 
not have created his offspring, unless he knew 
they would be the gainers thereby, and not the 
losers. Whatever destiny, therefore, awaits you 
and me, or any child of humanity, was clearly 
known to the mind of Deity at the time of crea- 
tion ; nor can we harbor the thought for one 



ON UNrVERSALISM. 41 

moment, that God would create a single beings 
knowing that that being would be finally miser- 
able, and thus infinitely more unfortunate than if 
God had never created him. He who could create 
with such a destiny in view, would be worse than 
a Nero, Caligula, or Robespierre, whose cruelties 
and abominations have so fearfully darkened the 
pages of a world's history. Bad as they were, 
tbeir cruelties would sink into utter insignificance 
compared with such an act as that on the part of 
the Creator. Take man just as we find him, with 
all his sinfulness and depravity, his weakness and 
imbecility, encompassed as he is, with the frail- 
ties of an earthly nature, and ask him, whether 
with a full knowledge of all the misery and woe 
that would result from the act, upon the hypothesis 
that endless misery is true, he would consent to 
become a creator. Bad as man is, he would not / 
consent to do that which my brother's theory 
ascribes to the great Jehovah! Now, remember, 
that God is a kind, indulgent Father, that he is 
good, that he is just, and that his tender mercies 
are over all his works," and then ask yourselves the 
question, would such a God do what even a frail, 
sinful man would not ? If he foresaw that any 
being whom he designed to create would be finally 
plunged into such depths of misery, would not a 
good and merciful God have stayed his hand, and 
spared the universe such a tragic spectacle of woe ? 
Certainly he would, if our conception of the divine 
character is at all correct. 



42 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

Hence, we argue, that God, being infinite in all 
•his perfections, has provided the means for the ac- 
complishment of all the gracious plans of his 
economy, which his foreknowledge deemed neces- 
sary for man's final holiness and happiness. He 
knew all the impediments that would arise as ob- 
stacles in the way of this glorious consummation, 
and has so arranged the affairs of his government, 
that nothing shall hinder the perfection of his pur- 
poses. 

Let Mr. Lozier meet the argument, and show 
how God, in accordance with his foreknowledge 
and love, can do otherwise than make all his crea- 
tures holy and happy. 

This speech will close my w r ork for to-night. I 
have not sufficient time remaining to introduce a 
new argument. I desire, however, before I close, 
to call your attention once more to the argument 
I have presented on the Paternity of God. I have 
shown you that it is the brightest link in the chain 
of human destiny ; and until my friend shall prove 
that God will cease to be our Father, that argu- 
ment will be firm and immovable, as the pillars of 
the eternal throne. I have introduced, also, an 
argument on the Love of God. I need not under- 
take to prove to this audience the great truth that 
God loves us. He loves you, and he loves me, to- 
night. How his watchful, protecting care has been 
about us all our lives. The sun has shone for you, 
and the rains have fallen for you ; and, notwith- 



ON UNIVERSALIS*!. 43 

standing, you may have forgotten God, he has not 
forgotten you. Every day of your lives have brought 
to you some fresh memento of his love. 

Mr. Lozier will follow me in a few moments. 
I desire you to pay particular attention to the man- 
ner in which he meets my arguments. If he 
can show to your satisfaction that God will ever 
cease to maintain the relation to humanity of a 
kind Father, or that he will cease to love his crea- 
tures as he loves them now, and has always loved 
them, then, and not till then, will he have sustained 
the negative of the proposition. 



MR. LOZIER'S FIRST REPLY. 

Messrs. Moderators : 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 
When I accepted the invitation of Mr. Foster 
to discuss the question already announced, it was 
my privilege to name certain stipulations whereby 
we were to be governed; and among them was 
that we were to have three discussions during this 
week, and three in the week following, beginning 
on Monday and continuing on alternate evenings 
during these two weeks. One reason for my mak- 
ing this stipulation was this: I am aware that 
the discussion of the doctrine of universal salvation, 
and the defense of that doctrine, is the gentleman's 



44 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

trade or occupation. I am aware that he has not 
failed, on every occasion when he could secure a 
person to discuss with him, either here or elsewhere, 
to seek for such a discussion. And I was aware 
that he would come up here to-night with his argu- 
guments cut and dry, and fully equipped and pre- 
pared to present in as perfect a condition as he 
could present them. Hence I shall take two days 
to prepare my reply. I knew that in the nature of 
things I could not do that thing ; for my occupa- 
tion has been ever since I have been a minister of 
the gospel, that of preaching the whole gospel of 
the Lord Jesus Christ — that of presenting, not sim- 
ply and constantly, the question of whether or not 
every human being, good, bad and indifferent, pure 
and impure, holy and unholy, should at last land safe 
in heaven whether they would or no; but my bus- 
iness was to preach what was the plain teaching of 
the word of God. I have had to preach a doc- 
trine that this gentleman has not seen fit to adopt 
or to advocate — if he had, he probably would not 
have had so many admirers in 'this community — 
and that doctrine is, that holiness is a desideratum, 
without which no man shall see the Lord. That 
is one of the doctrines that I have had to preach. 
Another doctrine that I have had to present con- 
tinually to the people, is, that men might be saved, 
and would be saved, by and through repentance 
and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; but the gentle- 
man has intimated no such doctrine here to-night. 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 45 

From all you can judge from what he has said, the 
world of mankind could have got along just as well 
without a Christ, as with one. For what use have 
we for a Christ under Mr. Foster's hypothesis ? 
He told us a while ago that there was no possible 
avenue of escape, and that every person who sinned 
must take the penalty upon himself and endure it. 
What use then for a Christ? If every man is his 
own Savior, whose Savior is Jesus Christ? Every 
man is his own Savior to all intents and purposes 
upon the position Mr. Foster has laid down before 
you to-night. 

I will go back a little further, I do not propose 
to take up these arguments and answer them now, 
I will simply direct attention to a few matters that 
he brought out. 

In regard to the love of God — the love and mer- 
cy of God — we do not claim as the gentleman 
does, that that love and mercy are to be displayed 
in the saving of all men whether they will or will 
not be saved ; but we claim that God has vindica- 
ted his love to the human race by providing the 
means, whereby man may be saved, if he will ; and 
there is the broad difference in the platforms upon 
which he and I are standing. I claim to have as 
much respect for the love of God, and as high an 
appreciation of it as he has. I honor God for his 
goodness as much as he ; but I do what he does 
nol ; I recognize the truth, that God has created 
mankind free agents ; and the further truth, that 



46 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

God's goodness, God's love, and God's foreknowl- 
edge, must consist with man's free agency. For 
man is a free agent, and God cannot be consistent 
with the laws that he has incorporated in our be- 
ing, and save us against our will. It is true that 
God might have done otherwise; but the simple 
fact divested of all sophistry is, that he did not — 
that he made man a free moral agent and placed 
before him good and evil — giving him the power to 
choose between them. The volition is his, to 
choose the good, and live in peace forever, or to 
choose the evil, and forever surfer the reward of his 
evil doing. 

The gentleman radiated very extensively for the 
amount of the foundation he had, on this matter 
of God being so full of love and at the same time 
deliberately consigning man to endless torment in 
hell-fire. I know some people are very liable to 
get scared at this hell-fire doctrine ; and I am not 
going to talk about that subject now. The ques- 
tion just now under discussion is not whether men 
are going to be forever toasted and roasted in fire 
and brimstone. After awhile we will attend to that 
matter, when we come to discuss the duration and 
nature of the punishment of the wicked ; but just 
now the question is, whether reason and scripture 
teach the doctrine of the final happiness and holi- 
ness of every individual of the human race. That 
is the question now. 

Mr. Foster says, God would not have created 



ON UNIVERSALIS^. 47 

any of his intelligent creatures if he had known 
(as he must have known) that they were to be end- 
lessly punished. Therefore, he concludes, every 
intelligent creature of God is to be restored, is to 
be released from that punishment which is inflicted 
upon him, at some time or other, whatever may be 
its character, and thenceforth be endlessly happy. 
The devil is one of God's intelligent creatures — 
when is he to get out? God foreknew the des- 
tiny of all his creatures, says Mr. Foster ; that in- 
cludes the devil as well as any body else, and God 
would not have created any one of his creatures if 
he had not designed him to be ultimately restored 
to their primal state of holiness and happiness. 
See where that leads to. The devil is to be re- 
leased from his imprisonment and brought to 
heaven with all the rest of God's intelligent crea- 
tures. We are all to go there too ; what then? We 
have got to strike hands with Jeff Davis, hug Cap- 
tain Wirz, and kiss and make up with the devil, 
that has given us all the trouble we ever had in 
this world. Now, if God would create an angel, 
knowing that that angel would fall, and yet would 
forever punish that angel with the torments of hell, 
why will he not also punish eternally beings whom 
he has created a little lower than the angels ? If 
God could create an angel of light, knowing that 
he would fall and go into everlasting punishment, 
why might he not create man, knowing that a por- 
tion of the human race would fall and be punished 
eternally for their sins? 



48 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

God is a pure and holy being, I, as a minister -of 
the gospel of his son, admit all that is claimed for 
him by Mr. Foster or his friends. I will say 
ftirther, at the outset, that I desire salvation 
for the entire human race as much as any body. 
Mr. Foster is welcome to my admission at the out- 
set, that I believe God desires the salvation of the 
whole race. He is welcome to the further admis- 
sion, that desiring the salvation of all men he has 
set forth the terrors of the law demanding faith 
and repentance from every son of man as the con- 
dition of salvation. But he is also welcome to 
this other declaration, that the Bible no where in- 
timates the salvation of any human being to whom 
the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is presented, 
and who does not accept it. I mean by that, when 
intelligibly presented, so as to be understood. We 
are not here to speak of idiots or heathen; but of 
intelligent persons who are capable of understand- 
ing language and comprehending ideas. But I 
have prepared an article in writing which embraces 
my views and which I propose to read. 

" Do the Scriptures and reason teach the doc- 
trine of the final holiness of all mankind?" 

I may as well remark right here, that it is not 
required of me by any rule of polemics, to prove 
that the Bible and reason do not teach that, my 
business is simply to let him prove that if he can, 
ana 1 if he can not, to show wherein he fails to prove 
it. The onus of proof is with him, and not with 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 49 

me. If the scriptures teach it, the question for you 
and him to settle is where do they teach it; if rea- 
son teaches it, it will devolve upon him to show 
you how. The insertion of the word "reason" into 
the question at issue, seems to be an invention of 
Mr. Foster himself, intended to give him plenty of 
room to dodge in. I never heard of any case in 
which this qualification of the issue has been insisted 
upon by any of those who have advocated Univer- 
salism. For my part, I am willing to test this 
whole question by the Bible ; for my view is, that 
whatever is reason is revelation, and any thing that 
is not consistent with reason is not revelation. 

As this doctrine is the greatest doctrine that can 
possibly affect human destiny, it should have been 
given the greatest prominence by the Almighty. 
Is there any dispute in regard to that? If the doc- 
trine of the final restitution of our racs to a state of 
happiness and holiness is the great doctrine of the 
Bible, God should have given it the greatest prom- 
inence in the Bible, in order to be consistent with 
himself. It must be as distinctly set forth as its 
importance demands. He must show wherein the 
scriptures thus present it. To aid Mr. Foster in 
concentrating his forces, I here assert that if God 
designs to bring all mankind to a final state of ho- 
liness and happiness, he is as much bound by his 
love to reveal that fact to us as he was to reveal to 
us the doctrine of the resurrection of the body; for 
the resurrection is only the restoration of the body* 
4 



50 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



while this is the restoration of that which is infill 
itely more important, and infinitely more valuable 
— the soul; and God is bound, I say, by his love, 
and by the honor of Deity, to make that doctrine, if 
it be true, as distinct as that of the resurrection. 
The superior value of the soul would reasonably 
prompt the Almighty to give the fact of its final 
restoration great prominence in the teachings of the 
prophets, evangelists, apostles, and especially in 
those of Christ. It will be the business of Mr. Fos- 
ter during this debate to show you where they have 
taught this doctrine clearly and distinctly. I assert 
that the Bible neither teaches nor intimates such a 
doctrine from the beginning of Genesis to the clos- 
ing paragraph of the Apocalypse. The gentleman 
has not shown the point to-night. He has talked 
about God's redeeming love and foreknowledge, 
and all that; but he has not shown the scriptural 
proof, nor a scriptural intimation of that doctrine- 
not one. 

I assert, moreover, and shall prove, at the proper 
time, that the scriptures clearly and positively teach 
the opposite, to-wit: the endless punishment of 
that part of the human race who reject the truth , 
and obey not the Son of God. 

As to whether reason teaches such a doctrine, I 
would say, in the first place, that although I am 
not aware of any precedent for this peculiar word- 
ing of the question in any former debate, yet I as- 
sented to it, because I am willing to rest this ques- 



-ON UNIVEKSALISM* 51 

tion upon reason alone, or upon the revelation of 
God alone. The power to discern the reasonable- 
ness of any proposition, is simply a question of 
mental development. The question to be decided 
is not, whether Mr. Foster's mind appreciates the 
truth of God — nor whether according to his rea- 
soning all mankind are to be finally made holy and 
happy— it is quite a different question, I would 
remark, however, that the very statement of the 
question under discussion, concedes to the negative 
one very important point. Holiness is an essen- 
tial requisite of happiness. Can there be such a 
thing as that kind of conformity to divine law, that 
perfect obedience to divine authority, which consti- 
tutes holiness, without free agency ? Can you con- 
sistently or rationally praise a man for doing right, 
who could not do wrong? Or can you condemn 
-a man for doing wrong who had not the power to 
do right? Can there be any such thing as either 
virtue or vice without free agency? Do you 
ascribe virtue or vice to mere machines ? Is your 
watch "virtuous" because it keeps correct time? 
Has your watch become "vicious " because it gets 
worn out and useless ? It is a machine, and to 
machinery we do not generally ascribe moral qual- 
ities, either good or bad. It is only to that which 
voluntarily acts, that such an ascription can be 
made. Man is a free agent. The first command 
that God gave to man, Gen. iii. 16, and the last invi- 
tation, Rev. xxii. 17, alike imply and teach the doc- 



52 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

trine of man's free agency. Not a rule in the Bible r 
nor in the statutes of your nation, or state, nor a 
rule of your own domestic circle proceeds upon any 
other hypothesis than this: that we are free to do 
right or wrong at pleasure; and God is a liar and 
a hypocrite when he holds out to man an offer of 
mercy, unless he has left him perfectly free to obey 
or to disobey his commands; to regard and accept,, 
or to disregard and refuse that offer of mercy. We, 
too, are hypocrites; and these gentlemen who gave 
you the rules by which this discussion is to be gov- 
erned — they, too, were hypocrites when they gave 
you these rules by which I and Mr. Foster are to 
be governed, unless we are free agents. And in all 
of our conduct, we practically accept this doctrine 
as true; that all men are free to do right, or to do 
wrong; to obey, or to disobey. In fact, the whole 
system of governments, both human and divine, i& 
a disgusting mockery — a farce — in any other view. 
But, if man is a free agent, why this quibbling 
over the question of why God has made us thus? 
Your continual quibbling over the question of why 
it is so, does not disprove the fact that it is so. 
God had to do one of three things : make man a 
free agent, not make him at all, or to make him 
either a brute or a piece of machinery. If God 
had not made man at all, then all his creation 
would have been useless ; if he had made him a 
brute or a machine, it would have been alike 
useless, and could not have added anything to his 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 53 

glory ; hence, God in his infinite wisdom, saw fit 
to extend the chain of divinely endowed intelligence 
one link lower, and man was made " a little lower 
than the angels." God made man in his own 
image — made him a free agent, and then set 
good and evil before him, and there he left him. 
Everything moved along happily, until the first 
Universalist preacher made his appearance, and 
commenced preaching his doctrine to Eve, in the 
garden of Eden. His discourse ran as follows: 
u Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree 
of the garden ? Ye shall not surely die, for God 
doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then 
your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as Gods, 
knowing good and evil." The scheme succeeded 
admirably. The preacher met with signal success. 
I know some persons who have sat under Mr. 
Foster's ministry for years, and are not yet fully 
converted to his faith. Said one old man, living 
down here in Ripley county, " I would give the 
best yoke of oxen on the place if I only knew it 
was so ;" and he had been a professed Universalist 
for years, and had even then commenced preaching 
it himself. This memorable discourse in the gar- 
den of Eden, laid the foundation of Universalis m, 
and proselyted Eve, who, in turn became a Uni- 
versalist preacher, and converted Adam to the ser- 
pentine faith. Cain was the next convert, and in 
Ihim we see the legitimate effect of the new doc- 
trine ; he sent Abel before him to that heaven to 



54 THEOLOGICAL DISOUSSION 

which he was to go at a later day, and where he- 
expected to meet him and be happy forever. The 
success of the doctrine kept pace with the growth 
of the race, until some sixteen hundred years after 
the creation, when there was almost a Universalist 
millenium; and if it had not been for that old 
bigot, Noah, the whole race of mankind would 
have been floated into this Universalist paradise,, 
and not even a dog would have been left to wag 
his tongue against the saving efficacy of Universal- 
ism. Another merciful dispensation of divine 
providence, in saving mankind upon Mr. Foster's 
principle, is seen in the case of the inhabitants of 
Sodom and Gomorrah, who were wheeled to 
heaven in chariots of fire. Pharaoh and his hosts 
furnish another memorable example of the success- 
ful workings of this scheme.. 

The poet has so aptly told this history that we 
will read his lines ; or rather, we will sing them. 
I will line them to you, and you can all sing. 
Brother Foster will please to pitch the tune : 

Thus Pharaoh and his mighty hosts, 

Had god-like honors given ; 
A pleasant breeze, brought them with easej. 

And took them safe to heaven ! 



So all the filthy Sodomites, 
When God bade Lot retire^ 

Went in a trice to paradise 
On rapid wings of fire ! 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 55 

Likewise the guilty Canaanites 

To Joshua's sword were given ; 
The sun stood still that he might kill, 

And pack them off to heaven I 

God saw those villians were to bad 

To own that fruitful land; 
He therefore took the rascals up 

To dwell at bis right hand ! 

The men who lived before the flood, 

Were made to feel the rod, 
They missed the ark, but like a lark 

Were washed right up to God I 

But Noah, he, because you see, 

Much grace to him was given, 
Still had to toil, and till the soil, 

And work his way to heaven ! 

The wicked Jews, who did refuse 

The Lord's commands to do, 
Were hurried straight to heaven's gate 

By Titus and his crew 1 

How happy is the sinner's state 

When he from earth is driven ; 
He knows it is certain fate 

To go straight up to heaven ! 

There's Judas, too, another Jew, 

Whom some suppose accursed ; 
Yet with a cord he beat his Lord, 

And got to heaven first ! 

I do not mean to say that all these people had a 
creed in black and white, and called themselves 
Universalists ; but that they only acted as Univer- 



56 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



salists should act, in order to be true to their prin- 
ciples ; for there is reason to believe that they all 
believed in the doctrine of Mr. Foster — in the ulti- 
mate holiness and happiness of all mankind, irres- 
pective of moral character. 

But from the remarks of Mr. Foster, to-night, I 
am led to believe that he, unlike these antedilu- 
vians, does really believe in the doctrine of future 
punishment ; that he does not agree with them in 
regard to immediate transportation to heaven after 
death. As it is, I shall have to keep shooting be- 
tween two bushes, not knowing which of the two 
he is behind. I do not fully know, as yet, whether 
he means to assert that all men are to go straight 
to heaven, or, on the other hand, that there is a 
sort of Universalist purgatory, to which some of 
them will go. I say a " Universalist purgatory," 
for I will not insult Catholicism, itself, with such a 
comparison ; because, whatever may be the amount 
of error pertaining to the Roman Catholic system, 
it does recognize the necessity of salvation through 
Jesus Christ, in order to ensure future and final 
happiness. I am told that Mr. Foster has recently 
remarked to some of his confidential and intimate 
friends in Indianapolis, that he did believe there 
was a little hell after all. 

One thing more upon this doctrine of restora- 
tion. If it is true that those who die impenitent, 
will, after expiating their crimes by suffering, be 
restored and made forever happy, then it follows, 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 57 

as a necessary consequence, that it is optional with 
any one to go immediately to heaven by accepting 
Christ, or to reject Christ and go to purgatory for a 
while, until their wickedness is burned out of them, 
and then go off to join those who went straight from 
earth to Paradise. A man can, at his option, let 
Christ satisfy the just anger of the Deity ; or, if he 
prefers, he can goto heaven in this roundabout way, 
and with no thanks to the Savior at all. He can 
sing, instead of that grand anthem of praise to the 
Lamb, this anthem of praise to himself: "Not 
unto thee, but unto my name be glory!" Such a 
monstrous doctrine must shock every ear. There is 
no soul in heaven, nor will there be throughout all the 
sinless future, who will not ascribe his salvation to 
Christ, and to Christ alone. " Thou was slain, and 
hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood," is the 
language ot the redeemed. There will be no other 
song but this : " Unto Him that hath loved us 
and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 
and hath made us kings and priests unto God, 
even the Father, to him be glory and dominion 
forever and ever." 



SECOND NIGHT 



MR. FOSTER'S SECOND SPEECH. 

Messrs. Moderators : 

Respected Friends: 

A brief statement of the argument adduced on 
the last evening, and a notice of a few points con- 
tained in Mr. Lozier's closing speech, and I shall 
proceed to the further development of the subject 
under discussion. 

My first argument was founded upon the Di- 
vine Paternity — upon the nature and character of 
God, and the relation that he sustains to the hu- 
man family. Our proposition was, that God was 
the Father of all mankind — that his affection for 
his offspring is the same in nature as that of a 
good and wise earthly parent — differing only in 
degree and intensity, being more infinite and en- 
during. Hence, we argued, that he would ulti- 
mately bestow upon his children an eternity of 
happiness and joy! That even in his punishments, 
he would not forget the relationship of Father ! 



ON UNIVERSAEJSM.. 59? 

Bat how does Mr. Lozier meet the argument 
presented ? By telling us that he wanted two days: 
to prepare a reply I If our argument was not 
sound and conclusive — if our position was false 
and erroneous, why was he not ready to reply at 
once ? A sad confession for one to make who has 
been preaching these many years past! But he 
has had the two days, and I suppose we shall hear 
at least, an attempt at a reply in his next speech. 

My next argument was upon the love of God- 
My proposition was, that God loves all mankind. 
The fact that they are sinners, does not alienate 
that love, or cause it to slumber. We laid it 
down as a truism, clearly deducible from our 
premises, that man is now, and ever has been, the 
object of God's love, and that this love will remain 
unchangably the same through time and eternity !. 
and that finally it will cause the hardest heart to 
melt before it, and bring all human intelligences 
under the sway of its mild and peaceful influences I 

But how does he meet this argument upon the 
love of God ? Like the other upon the divine pa- 
ternity, by telling us that we must wait two days 
for a reply ! 

Our third argument was predicated upon the 
foreknowledge of God. We argued that an in- 
finitely wise and good being would not have crea- 
ted human intelligences in accordance with his 
foreknowledge, without designing their ultimate 
happiness and bliss L From the fact, therefore,. 



60 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

■fchat God foreknows an event, it is proof positive 
that it will take place. The following testimonies 
were cited in proof of our position : Acts xv. 18. 
Job xxiv. 1. Isaiah xlvi. 9, 10. 

And this argument, like the rest, must needs lie 
over two days for a reply. What must you think 
of a man who stands as a prominent light in the 
-church, and who is the accredited Secretary of the 
Evangelical Ministerial Association of this city, 
when he tells you that he is not prepared to com- 
bat error, but wants two days for preparation ! 
Ah ! brother Lozier, I am fearful the two days are 
not sufficient, and that you will find the task you 
have undertaken a hard one, and fruitless in re- 
sults. 

Thus much in brief, by way of a review of my 
arguments advanced on Monday evening. I shall 
now proceed to notice some other matters in his 
speech, before introducing other testimonies in 
proof of our proposition. He says that discussion 
is my trade or occupation, and that my arguments 
are all cut and dried. This, I suppose, is an apol- 
ogy for his own weakness and failure to meet 
them. As to my " occupation" and " trade," a 
portion of this audience, at least, will bear me 
witness, that I have endeavored to the utmost of 
my ability, to discharge the duties of an ambas- 
sador ol Christ, in preaching the word of reconcil- 
iation. I have no disposition, if I had time to fol- 
low Mr. Lozier in his carricature upon Universal- 



ON TTNlVERSALISMe 61 

fern — or in his attempts to burlesque and ridicule 
my sentiments — and unless I am mistaken in read- 
ing the countenances of even his own friends, I do 
not think his course met with their approval. 
Such attempts at ridicule, such carricatures of doc- 
trines sacredly cherished and believed in by large 
numbers in almost every community, might do for 
a demagogue and mere politician ; but for one 
who occupies the position of a christian teacher, 
they are unbecoming and out of place, and but illy 
comport with the spirit and genius of Christianity I 
But I suppose, in the absence of argument, it was 
necessary to indulge in witicism and ridicule to 
fill up his time. 

But lest it should be thought by some that there 
was a semblance of argument in some of his asser- 
tions and assumptions, I shall proceed to notice 
two or three of the most prominent among therm. 
He says that all things went smoothly enough in 
the dawn of creation, until the first Universal- 
ist minister made his appearance in the garden of 
Eden, and taught his doctrine to Eve, who em- 
braced it, and then proselyted Adam. He then 
refers to Cain as the first fruits of the doctrine, and 
so on, takes in the inhabitants of Sodom and Go- 
morrah, as well as the antediluvians of the old 
world, and thinks it a great blessing upon the hy- 
pothesis of Universalism, that they were all safely 
transported to heaven ! And in this connection, he 
read to the audience some verses carricaturing our 



62 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

doctrines, and bringing in Pharaoh and his hosts, 
Judas fscariot, and a number of other matters, as 
illustrating the workings of Universalism, which 
excited some laughter among his friends, and 
which may have been supposed by some to be 
original. For their information, I would just say, 
that so far from being original, I have all the poe- 
try, just as he read it, in a work by Alexander 
Hall, entitled " Universalism against itself," which 
work also contains the substance of all that he 
said in that connection. So you see that I will 
not only have to meet Mr. Lozier in this debate, 
but Mr. Hall also. 

But what are the facts in the case ? Are his as- 
sumptions correct ? Let us see whether the doc- 
trine of Universalism, or that taught by Mr. Lozier, 
was proclaimed in the garden of Eden. Turn to 
the account. In Gen. ii. 17, we find the threaten- 
ing pronounced upon the first pair for the trans- 
gression of the first law ever given : u But of the 
tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not 
eat of it ; for in the day that thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt surely die! 11 But no, says Mr. Lozier; 
man is not punished in the day of transgression, 
but at some future time. Nor is it even certain 
that he will be punished at all! This is what the 
serpent said, " Ye shall not surely die /" So Mr, 
Lozier and the serpent proclaim the same senti- 
ment. Turn again to the curse pronounced after 
the transgression, Gen. iii. 14-20. Read the whole 



ON UNIVERSALIS*!. 63 

account, especially the last three verses, which are 
as follows : " And unto Adam he said, because 
thou has hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and 
hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, 
saying thou shalt not eat of it ; cursed is the ground 
for thy sake ; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the 
days of thy life ; thorns and thistles shall it bring 
forth unto thee, and thou shall eat of the herb of 
the field : In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat 
bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of 
it wast thou taken ;" for dust thou art, and unto 
dust shalt thou return." From this it, will be seen 
that the curse was to extend no farther than the 
days of his life. It is not said that he should be 
cursed in eternity! Nor is there the least intima- 
tion of any such sentiment in the whole account. 

So in the case of Cain. In Gen. iv. 12, we 
find the sentence passed upon himj"A fugitive 
and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth /" Not 
in eternity ! And it isall mere assumption on the 
part of Mr. Lozier, to say that any of the characters 
he has specified, are to suffer a torment in the future 
world. Let him cease in his attempts at ridicule, 
and meet the argument upon a fair issue. 

He is very desirous of knowing whether I believe 
in a purgatory or not, and intimated to you that I 
had really began to believe in a little hell ! Before / 
we are done, we shall show that we believe^* 
in more hell than Mr. Lozier. Many persons in 
my own church believe in the doctrine of future 



64 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

punishment. The issue now before us, however, 
is in regard to the final holiness and happiness of 
all mankind. It matters not, so far as the present 
discussion is concerned, whether all men go directly 
to heaven, or whether a thousand years, or million 
of ages shall elapse, before they are permitted to 
enter that glorious abode. Their final holiness and 
happiness is the only question involved ! The 
question is not in reference to hell, whether there 
is a little or a great deal, or any hell at all ! But 
" Do the scriptures and reason teach the doctrine 
of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind ?" 
Let Mr. Lozier confine himself to the question, and 
cease his quibbling and assumptions. 

In regard to his compliment to our Catholic 
friends, many of whom are present, it was no 
doubt very kindly received, especially as they know 
how much love he has for that Church. 

Again, he says, ** I assert that the Bible neither 
teaches nor intimates the doctrine of the final res- 
titution of all things from the beginning of Genesis 
to the end of Revelation!" Suppose I were to 
make a counter assertion, what would it prove ! 
Nothing at all. Assertions are nothing without 
testimony. Why does he not give us something 
in proof of his assertions ? 

But Mr. Lozier is considerably troubled, fearing 
he may have to associate with Jeff. Davis, Wirz, 
and the devil, in the future world, upon the hypoth- 
esis that my doctrine is true. So far as the devil 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 65 

is concerned, he need have no fears, for he is to be 
destroyed! "Forasmuch, then, as the children 
are partakers of flesh and blood, he also likewise, 
took part of the same; that through death he 
might destroy him that had the power of death, that 
is the devil ; and deliver them who through fear of 
death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." 
Heb. ii. 14, 15. Jeff. Davis is already a convert 
to Mr. Lozier's doctine, and is said to be extremely 
pious. So that if he has only repented, and been 
converted, no matter what may have been his former 
character or condition, he is now a fit subject for the 
kingdom of immortal blessedness ! And as for 
Wirz, he too was penitent, and is saved according 
to Mr. Lozier's theory. Not only so, but nine- 
tenths of all the murderers that have ever been exe- 
cuted in this country since the foundation of our 
government, have been pronounced fit subjects for 
heaven, before swinging from the scaffold! No 
matter how many murders they have committed, 
the penalty can easily be avoided by a timely re- 
pentance, and their salvation secured in heaven ! </\ 

What was said upon free agency will be at- 
tended to at another time. I now proceed with 
my affirmative argument. My fourth argument is 
based upon the government of God, and its gracious 
and paternal design. That God is the ruler and gov- 
ernor of the universe, and that all human intelligences 
are subjects of his government, is a proposition 
clearly deducible from the sacred pages. In 1st 
5 



66 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

Chron. xxix. 11, 12, we read : " Thine, O Lord, is the 
greatness, and the power and the glory, and the 
majesty ; for all that is in heaven, and in the earth 
is thine ; thine is the kingdom, (and the power,) O 
Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both 
riches, and honor come of thee, and thou reignest 
over all" Psalms xcvii. 1 : " The Lord reigneth, 
let the earth rejoice." Matt. vi. 13 : " For thine is 
the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever, 
Amen." These testimonies are sufficient to prove 
the fact that God is the supreme ruler of the uni- 
verse. And as such, in the establishment of his 
government, he must have had some specific object 
in view. Being infinite in all his attributes and 
perfections, nothing short of the final well being 
and happiness of all the subjects of his government, 
could have been contemplated in its construction. 
And hence in the administration of his government 
the Creator has put in operation those laws and 
agencies which are ultimately to secure the end had 
in view when the government was first framed. 
No contingence has been permitted to arise to 
subvert its original intention and design. All the 
laws established, and penalties annexed for their 
violation, are in perfect harmony and keeping with 
the benevolent purpose of the government. They 
are the enactments of a wise and kind Father, 
having equal reference to the final good of all 
his children. Thus, as a holy and wise being, he 
has so arranged all the affairs of his government, 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 67 

that they shall tend to bring about the perfection 
and happiness of the entire body of humanity. 
Any other view than this, of God's government, 
would impeach his goodness and love, and make 
shipwreck of the fondest desires that ever vibrated 
in the human soul. For if the foundations of the 
divine government are not firm and stable — if they 
are not anchored in the immutable promises and 
purposes of Jehovah — if they have not equal ref- 
erence to the ultimate well being of all mankind, 
then, indeed, are we like the mariner upon the ocean, 
without chart or compass, not knowing whither we 
are going, or where our journey will end ! 

But to some further testimonies in support of 
our proposition ; for I intend building an argument 
upon the government of God, that all the batte- 
ries of my opponent can never destroy. In Psalms 
xxii. 27, 28, we read : "All the ends of the world 
shall remember and turn unto the Lord, and all the 
kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee /" 
Mark the reason assigned for this universal hom- 
age in the latter part of the 28th verse : " For the 
kingdom is the Lord's, and he is the ruler among 
the nations /" No language could be more express- 
ive of universality than this. And all biblical stu- 
dents know that the phrase " all the ends of the 
world" as employed in the scriptures, denote all 
mankind. And the reason assigned by David for 
this universal turning to the Lord, is the best that 
could possibly have been given. Because he is the 



68 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

rightful sovereign and ruler of the Universe. But 
we have another testimony, which is, if possible, 
stronger than this. You will find it in Psalms 
lxxxvi. 9 : "All nations whom thou hast made shall 
come and worship before thee, O Lord, and shall 
glorify thy name /" Could language be more plain 
and postive in expressing the truth of my proposi- 
tion ? How many nations has God made ? Paul 
declares that " he hath made of one blood all na- 
tions /" All nations therefore, that have ever exis- 
ted, or that will exist in the coming ages of the 
future, " shall come and worship before him, and 
shall glorify his name !" 

Thus we have the most positive assurance of a 
time coming in the future, when God shall receive 
the praise and homage of universal humanity! 
True, all are not now obedient subjects of God's 
government — all may not be brought fully to obey 
the requirements of God's law in this life. What 
then? Does it follow that they will never be 
brought into subjection to it — that they will never 
obey its requirements? What are the require- 
ments of the law? Math. xxii. 37, 39: "Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and 
with all they soul, and with all thy mind. This is 
the first and great commandment. And the sec- 
ond is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor 
as thyself. On these two commandments hang all 
the law, and the prophets." Again says an Apos- 
tle, "Love is the fulfilling of the law" Upon ev- 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 69 

ery being in the universe this law is binding, and 
sooner or later they must be brought to obey its 
requirements." Jesus says that "not one jot or tittle 
of this law shall pass until it all be fulfilled !" To 
which we respond amen, so let it be ! Here is a 
consummation worthy of a God of love, and in 
harmony with the desires of all truly good persons. 
If the law of God is, " Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as 
thyself," can that law be fulfilled unless all in- 
telligent creatures are brought to love God and 
man ? David says : " The law of the Lord is per- 
feet, converting' the soul !" Psalms xix. 7. This 
glorious work may not be brought to perfection 
here, but we have the blessed assurance that it will 
finally be accomplished ! Let Mr. Lozier take hold 
of the argument, and show that it is not valid and 
conclusive. 

I now proceed to introduce my fifth argument, 
which I shall predicate upon the promise to Abra- 
ham — a promise which Paul affirms contained the 
substance of the gospel. You will find the prom- 
ise recorded in Gen. xxii. 15-18, inclusive : "And 
the angel ,pf the Lord called unto Abraham out of 
heaven the second time, saying, By myself have 
I sworn, saith the Lord ; for because thou hast done 
this thing, and hast not withheld thy son ; That in 
blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will 
multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as 
the sand which is upon the sea shore ; and thy 



70 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. An 
in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." The 
same promise was repeated unto Isaac in Gen. 
xxvi. 3, 4 : " Sojourn in this land and I will be with 
thee, and will bless thee ; for unto thee and unto 
thy seed, I will give all these countries ; and I will 
perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham, thy 
father. And I will make thy seed to multiply as 
the stars of heaven, and I will give unto thy seed all 
these countries ; and in thy seed shall all the nations 
of the earth be blessed!" And yet again, we find 
the promise confirmed unto Jacob, in Gen. xxviii. 
13, 14 : "I am the Lord God of Abraham thy fa- 
ther, and the God of Isaac ; the land whereon thou 
liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed. And 
thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth ; and thou 
shalt spread abroad to the west and to the east, 
and to the north and to the south ; and in thee, and 
in thy seed, shall all the families of the earth be 
blessed!" And Peter when quoting the promise 
in Acts iii. 25, says : " Ye are the children of the 
prophets, and of the covenant which God made 
with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy 
seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed /" 
And Paul assures us in Heb. vi. 13-17, that the 
promise was confirmed by an oath. " For when 
God made promise to Abraham, because he could 
swear by no greater, he sware by himself saying, 
surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 71 

will multiply thee. And so after he had patiently 
endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily 
swear by the greater ; and an oath for confirmation 
is an end of all strife. Wherein, God, willing more 
abundantly, to show unto the heirs of promise, the 
immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath /" 
Here we have a promise then, embodying the bless- 
ing of " all the nations, families, and kindreds of 
the earth," in the seed of Abraham, which is Christ. 
The only question remaining is, shall this promise 
ever be fulfilled, or is it to fail ? Saith the prophet, 
" Hath the Lord spoken and will he not do it ?" 
Paul says of Abraham, " That he staggered not at 
the promise of God through unbelief, being fully 
persuaded that what he had promised he was able 
also to perform /" The promise of Jehovah is im- 
mutable, and his word has been pledged that uni- 
versal humanity shall yet bow the knee, and hail 
him Lord of all! And the prophet assures us that 
" God is not man that he should lie ; nor the son of 
man that he should repent." Hence, we are will- 
ing to take him at his word, and believe that he 
will fulfil all his designs and purposes of goodness 
embraced in this promise to Abraham. Mr. Lo- 
zier will no doubt attempt to show, as did Dr. 
Clarke, that this promise has reference to a nation- 
al blessing — that the nations of the earth were to 
be blessed by having the gospel preached unto them. 
But you will mark the language used in Gen. 
xxviii. and Acts iii. where it says "families " and 



72 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

" kindreds /" Hence it embraces all who are mem- 
bers of families, or who have any kindred, and is 
therefore universal in its application. But we 
leave our argument, hoping that Mr. Lozier will 
give it his early attention. 

My sixth argument is based upon the will of God. 
My first testimony you will find in 1st Tim. ii. 1- 
5, inclusive. " I exhort therefore, that first of all, 
supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of 
thanks be made for all men ; for kings and for all 
that are in authority ; that we may lead a quiet 
and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of 
God our Savior, who will have all men to be saved, 
and come unto the knowledge of the truth! For 
there is one God, and one mediator between God 
and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself 
a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 
Here the language of the Apostle is simple, plain, 
and easy of apprehension. No ambiguous phrases 
occur. " Who will have all men to be saved, and 
come unto the knowledge of the truth!" The same 
" all " whom Timothy was commanded to pray for ; 
the same " all " for whom Christ gave himself a 
ransom. It would be impossible for me to select 
words more expressive of universality ! The lan- 
guage is not metaphorical, but is couched in such 
terms and phrases, as can be comprehended by even 
the weakest intellect. 

God, then, having willed the salvation of all men, 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 73 

he must necessarily have willed all the means and 
agencies adequate to secure the result. Even an 
imperfect being like man, never determines to do a 
cetrain work within the range of his power, without 
providing all the means necessary, to secure its 
consummation. Nor can we harbor the thought 
for one moment, that God has undertaken the 
work of man's salvation, without making every 
provision necessary to bring about such a grand 
and glorious result. His resources are unbounded — 
the means at his command unlimited — and hence 
there can be no such thing as failure in accom- 
plishing his will. The great scheme of human re- 
demption then, comprehends the will of God as 
expressed by Paul to Timothy. And to accom- 
plish this will, Jesus expressly declares to be one 
of the great objects of his mission. In John vi. 38, 
39, he says, " I came down from heaven, not to do / 
mine own will, but the will of Him that hath sent 
me, and this is the Father's will which hath sent 
me, that of all which he hath given me I shall lose 
nothing, but should raise it up again at the last 
day." How many were given to him? David 
says of his spiritual kingdom, Psalms ii. 8, " Ask 
of me, and I shall give the heathen for thine inher- 
itance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy 
possession /" Again, in John iii. 35, we are told 
that " The Father loveth the Son, and hath given 
all things into his hand!" And Paul, in Hebrews? 
declares that he was " appointed heir of all things /" 
In John iv. 34, he says, " My meat is to do the 



74 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

will oj Him that hath sent me, and to finish his 
^ work !" Mr. Lozier says the work will never be 
finished, but that a large part of those whom Christ 
came into the world to redeem and to save, will be 
consigned to the vortex of ruin, there to remain as 
long as the throne of God shall endure ! Would 
Christ have undertaken the work, had he supposed 
for a moment that there would be a failure in the 
matter? Would such a result finish God's work, 
which is the salvation of the world? Will Mr. 
Lozier liken Christ to the foolish builder, who 
commenced building without counting the cost, and 
therefore was not able to finish ? Will he fail of 
bringing all to the knowledge of the truth ? Only 
on the hypothesis that the means placed at his dis- 
posal were insufficient for the task. That power 
sufficient was given him to enable him to fulfil his 
mission in this respect, will be seen by consulting 
John xvii. 2: " Thou hast given him power over all 
flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as 
thou hast given him!" Again, in Matthew xxviii. 
18, "All power is given unto me, in heaven and in 
earth !" 
^ Thus God's will is that all shall be saved! 
Christ came to do that will, and to finish his work! 
He had the power and means at his disposal, and 
hence will succeed in bringing " all to a knowledge 
of the truth !" In the prophecy of Daniel iv. 35, 
we read : " He doeth according to his will, in the 
army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of earth > 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 75 

and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, what 
doest thou ?" Let Mr. Lozier show, if he can, 
that God's will is not supreme — that it can be 
frustrated by man, and he will have done some- 
thing in the way of answering our arguments. 

My seventh argument is founded upon the uni- 
versal reign of righteousness in Christ, as taught 
by Paul in Romans v. 18-21 : " Therefore as by the 
offence of one, judgment came upon all men to con- 
demnation, even so, by the righteousness of one, the 
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 
For as by one man's disobedience many were made 
sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be 
made righteous ! Moreover, the law entered, that 
the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, 
grace did much more abound. That as sin hath 
reigned unto death, even so might grace reign 
through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus 
Christ our Lord." 

The argument of the apostle in this chapter, is 
one of the most complete and convincing proofs of 
the final holiness and happiness of all mankind, to 
be found in the New Testament. He recognizes 
in verse 12, and elsewhere, the universal sinfulness 
of the human race, and predicates on this, the love 
of God in sending his Son into the world. And 
this very phase in the condition of humanity, 
which, according to Mr. Lozier's theory, is forever 
to exclude the sinner from God's presence, is the 
very reason assigned by the apostle why he is to be 



76 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

saved! In the testimonies quoted, we have the 
condemnation of death placed in the scale on the 
one hand, and the justification by life on the other, 
the object of which is to show, that as extensive as 
may be the effects of sin and death, even so univer- 
sal will be the life and righteousness ! The word 
" many," in the 19th verse, corresponds with the 
phrase "all men," in the 18th. This fact is ad- 
mitted by eminent commentators, who do not be- 
lieve in the doctrine of the salvation of all men. 
The celebrated Macknight says, " The word many 
stands for the phrase all mankind!" Dr. Clarke 
says " That the oi polloi, the many, of the apostle 
here means all mankind, needs no proof to any one 
but the person who finds himself qualified to deny 
that all are mortal. And if the many, that is all 
mankind, have died through the offence of one, 
certainly the gift by grace, which abounds unto the 
tous pollous, the many, by Jesus Christ, must have 
reference to every human being!" Turn to the 15th 
verse : " But not as the offence 3 so also is the free 
gift. For if through the offence of one many be 
dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by 
grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, hath 
abounded unto many." Here we find a contrast 
between the offence or sinfulness of all men as rep- 
resented in Adam, and the gift of holiness for all 
men, in Christ, the second Adam, and Lord from 
heaven! And you will notice the fact, that the 
language is used in its strongest mode of expres- 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 77 

sion. The grace is said to abound much more 
than^the sinfulness of men, so that it will be 
abundantly able to overcome all opposition. It 
will be observed that we have the same " many" 
spoken of, which is alluded to in the 19th verse, and 
which embraces universal humanity, or all who are 
made sinners. But the apostle goes even farther 
than this, and makes the subject, if possible, plainer, 
in the closing verses, by declaring that the reign of 
grace is to extend beyond that of sin and death / 
That it is to end in the destruction of both these 
opposing influences. Verses 20th and 21st, 
«' Moreover, the law entered that the offence might 
abound. But where sin abounded, grace did 
much more abound; that as sin hath reigned unto 
death, even so, might grace reign through right- 
eousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our 
Lord." Thus grace is to reign beyond sin and 
death ! But how can this be, if sin and death are 
to prove equally powerful, and to resist success- 
fully the efforts of grace for their destruction ? 
How can grace extend over and beyond that which 
has no end? Such a thing is impossible. The 
condemnation of all men for sin, then, is to end in 
the justification of all men with a life unending and 
glorious ! Thus will Christ's love, which shone so 
brightly throughout his eventful career, and which 
shed such a halo of divine glory around the cross, 
attract all souls to God — reclaim the erring, bring 
back the wandering, and cause all the children of 



78 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

sin and sorrow, to rejoice in the clear sunlight of 
truth. The condemnation of sin in every soul will 
be followed by justification of life! Grace will, 
reign triumphant in every heart ! 

Here is a consummation at once glorious, and 
embodying the highest forms of good, of which it 
is possible for the human mind to conceive. Evil 
is no longer a thing to be dreaded, whose conse- 
quences are to run parallel with eternity, holding 
in endless captivity, myriads of human intelli- 
gences ! But like the mists before the brightening 
sun, it is destined to disappear before the rays of 
divine grace and truth ! I cannot better close my 
argument upon the grace of God, than by giving 
you Dr. Clarke's comment on the passages under 
consideration. He says, " Thus we find that the 
salvation from sin here, is as extensive and complete, 
as the guilt and contamination of sin ! Death is 
conquered, the devil confounded, hell disappointed, and 
sin totally destroyed! Amen! Hallelujah! The 
Lord God omnipotent reigneth ! Amen and Amen /" 
We want no better Universalism than this. Death 
conquered, the devil confounded, and sin totally 
destroyed! Let Mr. Lozier meet the argument if 
he can, and give a reason why it is not sound and 
conclusive. 

My eight argument is predicated upon the king- 
dom and reign of Christ. My proposition is, that 
all are subjects of Christ's kingdom and reign, and 
hence the administration of his government has 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 79 

reference to the final good and happiness of all in- 
telligences ! My first testimony will be found in 
1st Cor. xv. 25, 26, " For he must reign until he 
hath put all enemies under his feet : The last en- 
emy that shall be destroyed is death." This lan- 
guage admits of no limitation whatever. The 
phrase " all enemies," embrace all the forces of op- 
position to man's happiness and peace, and all 
these are to be destroyed ! In Daniel, vii. 14, we 
have a prophecy of the setting up of this kingdom, 
" And there was given dominion, and glory, and a 
kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages 
should serve him ; his dominion is an everlasting 
dominion, which shall not pass away, and his 
kingdom that which shall not be destroyed /" Dur- 
ing the reign of Christ in this kingdom, he admin- 
isters rewards and judgments, and with the close 
of his reign, the dispensation of rewards will cease. 
His judgment seat was set up at the beginning of 
his kingdom — not to be established, as Mr. Lozier 
contends, at the close, or winding up of the affairs 
of the kingdom. It is not the severity, but the 
certainty of punishment, that makes it efficacious — 
and when you teach mankind that there is no 
escape from the consequences of transgression — 
that " the way of the transgressor is hard," — that 
though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be 
unpunished" — then, and not till then, will vice be 
banished from our world, and society upon earth 
become the image of heaven above ! But to other 



80 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

testimonies, and I hope Mr. Lozier will note them 
down. In Isaiah xlii. 1-5, inclusive, " Behold my 
servant, whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my 
soul delighteth ; I have put my spirit upon him : 
he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He 
shall not lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in 
the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and 
the smoking flax shall he not quench ; he shall 
bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not/ail, 
nor be discouraged till he have set up judgment in 
the earth!" No allusion to a judgment in eternity ! 
Here is a prediction of Christ's reign, and of the 
establishment of his judgment in the earth! The 
language is plain and positive, and admits of no 
false construction. Again, we have another testi- 
mony equally conclusive, in Jer. xxiii. 5 : " Behold 
the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise 
unto David, a righteous branch, and a king shall 
reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and 
justice in the earth /" Not in eternity ! There is no 
ambiguity in the language here employed. It is a 
plain prophecy of the establishment of Christ's 
rule and reign in the earth ! The testimony of the 
Savior fully corroborates the prediction of Isaiah 
and Jeremiah. In John v. 22, he says : " For the 
Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all 
judgment to the Son." Again, in John ix. 39, he 
says: " For judgment I am come into this world!" 
And in John xii. 31, we read, " Now is the judg- 
ment of this world) now shall the prince of this 



ON UNIVERSALIS*!. 81 

world be cast out." Thus we have the prophecy 
and its fulfillment, in regard to the reign and judg- 
ment of Christ in the earth. And this is the uni- 
form testimony of the scriptures in regard to re- 
wards and punishments. David says, Psalms lviii. 
11, " Verily there is a reward for the righteous ; ver- 
ily he is a God that judgeth in the earth /" So we 
read in Jer. ix. 24 : " But let him that glorieth, glory 
in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, 
that I am the Lord which exercise loving kindness, 
judgment and righteousness in the earth /" In 1st 
Cor. xv. already alluded to. Paul says : " Then Com- 
eth the end, when he shall have delivered up the 
kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall 
have put down all rule, and all authority and pow- 
er. For he must reign until he hath put all things 
under his feet. The last enemy that shall be des- 
troyed, is death /" Yes, my friends, the reign of 
Christ is to continue until death itself is destroyed ; 
until " all enemies," — all sources of opposition 
whatever to the Messiah's reign, shall be utterly des- 
troyed! And then, when the glorious and final 
consummation is wrought, of all that Christ came 
into our world to accomplish — then we are told, " he 
shall deliver up the kingdom to God the Father, 
that he may be all in all !" This is at the end of 
his reign. How can any one doubt in view of 
these testimonies, that the reign of Christ is estab- 
lished, and that his righteous judgments are meted 
out, not in eternity, but in the earth.! The scrip- 
6 



82 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

tures are replete with allusions to the happy and 
peaceful nature of the termination of Christ's 
reign. It is to end in the holiness and happiness 
of every creature for whom Christ died. Let Mr. 
Lozier show one passage — it is all we ask, where 
x^j. it is said that Christ's judgment was to be estab- 
lished in eternity, or that God's judgments are 
meted out in a future state. 

What would you think, my friends, of a govern- 
ment that should establish its judgment at the 
close or winding up of its affairs ? And yet, this 
is the theory of Mr. Lozier in regard to God's gov- 
ernment. All judicial tribunals are established 
\ with the commencement of a government — and 
rewards and punishments are administered during 
its progress, and with its termination they cease. 
And so it is with the government of God, wheth- 
er administered under his immediate supervision, 
or through Christ, as his agent or ambassador. 

In the testimony presented from Corinthians, 
after affirming the general truth, that Christ is 
to reign until " all enemies are destroyed," he 
says : " The last enemy, that shall be destroyed is 
death." Here is a conquest which is to seal the 
great work of his mission — a result in unison with 
every holy desire of the human heart. And who 
can doubt this glorious result of Christ's reign? 
This final triumph of universal humanity over sin 
and death? What a jubilatic day will that be, 
when universal humanity shall emerge from the 



ON UNIVERSALIS*!. 83 

darkness of error, sin, death and the grave, into the 
glorious light and liberty of the children of God! 
Truly did Jesus say, "In the resurrection they neither 
marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the 
angels in heaven !" Then will be fulfilled and ver- 
ified, what was prefigured to the inspired Revelator, 
when "every creature in heaven and earth, and 
under the earth, and in the sea, and all that 
are in them, shall be heard saying, Blessing and 
honor, and glory and power, be unto him that sit- 
eth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever 
and ever !" Then too, shall be fulfilled the sublime 
prediction of the Psalmist, when " all the nations 
whom God has made shall come and worship be- 
fore him, and shall glorify his name " — when " all 
the ends of the earth shall remember and turn 
unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations 
shall worship before him !" 

But we must close our argument for the present. 
The testimonies we have introduced are plain and 
forcible, and I hope Mr. Lozier will find time to 
notice them without waiting two days. I regret 
that my fifty minutes is so short, as I had much 
more testimony that I had designed introducing at 
this time. Hoping that Mr. Lozier will at least 
attempt a reply to my arguments, I leave them 
with you, trusting that you will weigh them well 
in your minds, and be governed by the evidence 
presented. 



84 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

MR. LOZIER'S SECOND REPLY. 

Messrs. Moderators : 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I presume the apology that Mr. Foster so kindly 
offered for my negligence in not answering all of 
his arguments on last Monday night, is amply 
satifactory to all who were here. I thank him for 
presenting the apology so forcibly. It may be my 
misfortune and infirmity, that I am not willing to 
undertake to answer the arguments he presents, 
in all cases, on the same evening that they are 
presented. If the gentleman shall succeed in an- 
swering those that I present, on the same evening 
that they are presented, when I am in the affirma- 
tive, you will observe this fact, that the Almighty 
has blessed him, at least in one particular, in which 
he has not favored me ; and I think Mr. Foster 
should be very thankful for it. We shall see how 
that is, when the proper time comes. I understand 
very well the object of the gentleman in undertak- 
ing to address you, as he did, concerning me : it 
was to lead your minds entirely from the points I 
presented. I shall show you that he has failed to 
answer me. 

He told you that I stood before you for the space 
of thirty minutes, last Monday evening, and said 
nothing at all in reply to his arguments, but told 
you I would wait two nights before I undertook to 
answer them ; and that all I said had nothing at all 
to do with the question. He had a great deal to 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 85 

say about the vile caricature and abuse that he 
regarded me as having been guilty of on that even- 
ing. I must confess, that if all he insinuates is true, 
you are a delightful set of ninnies to set still so pa- 
tiently, in the face of such vile language and such 
abuse. It is not at all complimentary to the audi- 
ence, to say the least. But you know, ladies and 
gentlemen, whether such was the fact or not; and 
if, with your knowledge of the facts, Mr. Foster 
will stand up before you and make an asser- 
tion of that kind, let him take the consequences — 
let him assume the responsibility of doing it, and 
you form your own estimate of his conscience. 

I shall now take the occasion to reply to his ar- 
guments advanced on last Monday evening. This 
was my plan from the outset, and I shall follow it. 

The first argument advanced by Mr. Foster, was 
an argument hypothecated on the paternity of God. 
I wish to say to Mr. Foster, that he waded through a 
vast amount of scripture to prove a doctrine that we 
all cordially accede to : and that is, that God is " the 
God and Father of us all." A great deal of labor 
was expended over a matter that was not in issue. 
We agree as to the paternity of God. Further- 
more, we agree as to the love, and as to the fore- 
knowledge of God, also. We agree with him fully 
as to those doctrines, but not as to his deductions 
from the paternity, the love, or the foreknowledge of 
God. 

In the first place, God is our Father in the ere- 



86 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

ative sense, and in that sense, we are all the sons 
of God. We are his offspring, and as his off- 
spring, his love to us is like that of a parent to his 
children, only more intense ; and if there was no 
moral difference in men, there would be no differ- 
ence in God's dealings towards them in the day of 
judgment. So far, so good. But right here, Mr. 
Foster's argument fails. He does not recognize 
the fact distinctly set forth in the scriptures, that 
in the high moral sense, that which involves the 
question of punishment, we are not all children of 
God. In that moral sense, they are aliens from 
God, and described by God himself as being not 
his children. Now for the testimony. Here what 
Paul says to the Ephesians in his Epistle to that 
people, ii. 12, 13 : " At that time ye were without 
Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of 
Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise, 
having no hope, and without God in the world. 
But now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime were 
afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ." 
What is the extent and nature of this alienation 
which Paul has here alluded to? Let John 
answer : " In this the children of God are manifest, 
and the children of the devil ; whosoever doeth 
not righteousness, is not of God, neither he that 
loveth not his brother." This language is from the 
1st Epistle of John iii. 10. Here we find another 
class of " children" specified by the apostle, " the 
children of the devil." There are these two classes : 



ON UNIVERSALIS*!. 87 

the children of God and the children of the devil. 
All children of God by creation, but one class no 
longer children of God morally, but children of the 
devil through sin. 

Again, hear Jesus himself speaking to the Jews 
in the treasury of the temple, John viii. 41-44, 
inclusive : " Ye do the deeds of your Father. 
Then said they to him, we be not born of fornica- 
tion ; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said 
unto them, if God were your Father, ye would love 
me ; for I proceeded forth and came from God ; 
neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why 
do ye not understand my speech ? Even because 
ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father 
the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." 
Whose children were these ? The children of the 
devil ; quite another class from those who are the 
children of God. All this can signify but one 
thing, and that one thing can be nothing else 
but this : that while all are children of God by 
creation, many have become the children of the 
devil, by wickedness and alienation from God. It 
means nothing, unless it means that. Notwith- 
standing Mr. Foster's assertion, that no matter how 
far down the steeps of sin a man may go, he is a 
child of God, Christ and the apostle say, he be- 
comes a child of the devil. This is the relation in 
which a portion of the sons of God by creation 
stand to-day ; and Mr. Foster's argument fails to 
show that they shall be finally holy and happy, 
except upon condition of repentance and faith in 



88 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

the Lord Jesus Christ. Here is the broad differ- 
ence between Othodoxy and Universalism. Uni- 
versalism claims that God cannot be a God of love, 
and let man be lost. We, on the other hand, claim 
that while God is a God of love, he has done all that 
he could do for man's salvation, consistently with 
his free agency, leaving it wholly optional with 
man to resist God and die, or to serve him and 
live forever. Here is the only way of escape God 
has provided for these children of the devil. It i s set 
forth in the declaration Paul makes to the churches 
of Galatia, found in Galatians iv. 4-7, inclusive : 
" But when the fulness of time was come, God 
sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under 
the law, to redeem them that were under the law, 
that we might receive the adoption of sons. And 
because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the spirit 
of his son'into your hearts, crying Abba, Father! 
Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son ; 
and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." 
Mr. Foster says they were sons already. Paul says, 
" Christ came into the world in order that they 
might receive the adoption of sons." Let me direct 
your attention a little further to this wonderful 
display of grace, on God's part, in sending his Son 
into the world in order that we might become the 
children of God. The apostle says, "God so loved 
the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but 
have everlasting life ?" Did you observe how Mr. 



ON UNIVERSAL ISM. 89 

Foster quoted that passage, on last Monday even- 
ing? There is a great deal in the manner in 
which we quote. He was enlarging on the love of 
God to the human race, and when he came to this 
passage, he made it read: "God so loved the 
world," and so on, placing all of the emphasis 
upon the word "loved," and skipping over the 
words "whosoever believeth," in such a way that 
the real meaning of the passage is covered up. 
Eternal life is for "whomsoever believeth." If 
they believe, what then follows ? Let us go to the 
Apostle Paul for an answer. We have it in Ro- 
mans viii. 16, 17 : " The spirit itself beareth wit- 
ness with our spirit, that we are the children of 
God. And if children, then heirs ; heirs of God, 
and joint heirs with Christ ; if so be that we suffer 
with him, that we may be also glorified together." 

Mr. Foster fatally erred in his argument, because 
of the falsity of his premise. He asserts the con- 
tinuity of the relation of children to God ; Christ 
denies it, for the reason that man has voluntarily 
destroyed that relation. The premise being false, 
his whole argument falls to the ground. 

The second argument which Mr. Foster deduced 
from the paternity of God is this : If an earthly 
parent would compass all the means in his power 
to save his child, God, whose love is infinitely 
greater, and whose power is infinite, will ultimately 
bring all mankind to him. He says, God is not as 
good to his children, as we are to ours, unless he 



90 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

shall thus save them all. This, he took care to 
tell us, was " one of the strongest links in the chain 
of his argument." If that is so, so much the 
worse for the chain. This argument is not only 
illogical, but worse. It compels us to impeach 
God's goodness ; for according to it, an earthly pa- 
rent is far more tender in his love for his children 
than the Divine Being himself. Look at the facts. 
No human being has ever yet lived, or ever will live, 
who has not suffered more or less from afflictions, 
which any good earthly parent would have pre- 
vented, had it been in his power. What parent 
would have his child born blind, or deaf and dumb, 
or a cripple ? What parent would not prevent the 
sickness of his child if he had the power to do it ? 
Who, if he had the power to prevent it, would 
suffer his child to endure all the evils that befall us 
all through life ? What community is there that 
would not rejoice to wipe out, at one stroke, all the 
unnumbered calamities of our race ? Yet God, 
who is infinitely better than the best of our race, 
and has the power, does not prevent these evils. 
Why is it, that if God would prevent the evils that 
would befall us in the future world, as a punish- 
ment for sins that we have committed, he will not 
prevent the evils that afflict us to to-day ? Let 
Mr. Foster answer this question. On his hypoth- 
esis, the inevitable conclusion is, that God, who 
does less for man, than man would do for his kind, 
if he had the power, loves man less than man loves 



ON Ux\IVERSALISM. 91 

his fellow man. God loves less than man loves ! 
Will Mr. Foster thus impeach God? Yet he 
must show the contrary, or abandon his position. 
His whole argument condemns God, for not pre- 
venting, by means of his infinite power, the evils 
and sufferings which so greatly afflict the human 
race. 

But, it is a rule in polemics, that any hypothesis 
is wrong, whose logical deductions conflict. It is 
for Mr. Foster to show that these deductions are 
illogical, that I have made from his hypothesis; 
namely: that if God's love would compel him to 
prevent future suffering as a punishment for sin, 
it would likewise compel him to prevent the suffer- 
ings that belong to the temporal state. 

His is a one-idea doctrine. He takes one of 
God's perfections, and ignores all the rest, which 
are just as important, and just as essential to the 
divine character. He sees God's love, but ignores 
his holiness and justice. He quotes Malachi, ii. 2, 
" Have we not all one Father ? Hath not one God 
created us?" but he does not exclaim with Isaiah: 
" The Lord Jehovah is our judge; the Lord is our 
law-giver; the Lord is our King!" He sees not the 
living creatures before the throne, full of eyes, show- 
ing their wonderful intelligence, and crying continu- 
ally and forever, Holy, Holy, Lord God, Almighty!" 
He appeals to our idea of God's love, as if God had 
no conscience. Holiness is ascribed to God oftener 
than any other attribute named in the scriptures* 



92 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

The love of God is a holy love — a love of holiness ; 
is not that true? If so, his character is opposed to sin. 
It is a truism, that God must be opposed, by nature, 
to whatever is opposed to his nature. It belongs 
to the very nature of things 3 that just as any being 
loves one thing, whatever that thing may be, in the 
same proportion he hates its opposite. God can 
not love holiness, without hating sin just in the 
same proportion that he loves holiness. We know 
also by observation, that the more holy and the 
more like God a man becomes in this life, the more 
he hates sin. This is not only a matter of principle, 
therefore, but also a matter of fact. It is a matter of 
revelation also. Jesus said, " If a man love the one 
he will hate the other; ye can not serve God and 
mammon." It follows, that God having infinite 
love for holiness, has infinite hatred for sin. 

Now, let me give you another principle that no 
thinking man can gainsay, and which ought to 
make every man tremble who will not repent, and 
obey the gospel of the Son of God. The conscience 
of every intelligent being will sanction the infliction 
of penalty upon the transgressor, just in proportion 
to the opposition of his nature to the transgression. 
If Mr. Foster, for instance, is not opposed to sin ; if 
he does not hate sin, he will oppose its punishment; 
but if God is opposed to sin in an infinite degree, 
corresponding to the infinite holiness of the char- 
acter of God, then he will punish sin accordingly. 
" It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 



93 



living God!" The only means that infinite love 
has provided for man's redemption, is set forth in 
Rom. iii. 24-26 : "Being justified freely by his grace, 
throu gh the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ; whom 
God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith 
in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the re- 
mission of sins that are past, through the forbearance 
of God. To declare, I say, at this time, his righteous- 
ness : that he might be just, and the justifier of him 
that believeth in Jesus." That is the only means 
that God's infinite love has provided for man's 
escape from the consequences of his sins — by his 
coming to the blood of Christ, and receiving pardon 
through that blood. 

But Mr. Foster's argument from the love of God, 
if it proves any thing, proves too much. It is like 
the darkey's steer, that when it began to jump, 
jumped so high that it killed itself. Mr. Foster's 
argument kills itself outright, to all intents and pur- 
poses, if he does not show wherein this argument 
does not hold good with respect to temporal suffer- 
ing, as well as to eternal punishment. If God does 
not, in his great and infinite love, prevent suffering 
here, how do you know he will do so hereafter? 
You say he changes not. Then, as he here pun- 
ishes men in this life, by the laws of nature, for even 
a violation of physical laws, how do you know he 
will not punish them in the life to come, for viola- 
tions of his divine law? You say that in the next 
world, God's love will be so overwhelming, that the 



94 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

sinner will be constrained to accept salvation. How 
do you know that? If God designs to overwhelm 
men in that manner, why does he not overwhelm 
them here in the same manner, and bring them, 
while here on earth, to accept the offers of salva- 
tion? Has he not the power to do it? Is there 
anything in the physical nature of man that pre- 
vents it here? Is man's body in the way ? If that 
be true, then God is not omnipotent. If his pur- 
pose is to compel man by his great love to accept 
the offer of the divine favor, he can do it as well 
here, as in the next state. By ignoring the only 
terms of salvation that God has pointed out, and 
by this declaration which he makes in regard to 
another state of probation after this, he is blinding 
the eyes of men, and leading them on through this, 
the only state of probation that God has ever in- 
timated they should enjoy, until they plunge thus 
blinded, and thus deluded, into that awful eternity 
for which they might have been prepared, had it 
not been for this subterfuge of lies. The responsi- 
bility is his — if he desires to take it upon him — if 
he is prepared to promise to his fellow men a fu- 
ture state of probation, that God has not promised, 
and of which there is not even the slightest intima- 
tion, from the first letter of divine revelation to the 
last, he must be permitted to do it. It is a fearful 
responsibility ; let him take it if he will. Why does 
he not show us the scripture for this additional state 
of probation? If he can, why does he not do it? 



ON UNIVERSALIS^. 95 

He professes to adhere closely to the subject, and 
says he will not suffer himself to be drawn away 
from it, by any thing that I shall say. I therefore 
ask him to answer this question — why did he not 
give us the scripture for his next probationary state? 

It is, therefore, clear, both from scripture and 
reason, that, though in relation to creation and 
providence, God is the Father of all ; yet he is also 
the sovereign ruler and judge of all men. It is 
equally clear, in the second place, that the moral 
actions of men with respect to obedience, or to re- 
bellion against the divine government, are free and 
unrestrained. And in the third place, that it is 
perfectly in keeping with the character of God, 
and with his paternity and goodness, for God, in 
the character of judge, to inflict the punishment 
threatened in the Bible upon the sinner, or to 
grant the promised salvation through repentance 
and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That inflic- 
tion may be made in perfect consistency with the 
divine nature — it may be made eternal, and there 
is no evidence whatever to show that it is not, and 
much to show that it is. 

I have now carefully examined every phase of 
the argument advanced under the head of the di- 
vine paternity — of the paternal love of God, al- 
though I did not see fit to follow Mr. Foster in the 
precise order in which he advanced them. " God's 
paternal love," would have been a better statement 
of his proposition, and as such I have answered 
his argument. 



96 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

You will observe that all the argument presented 
by the affirmative here — all the proof advanced 
under this head — was directed to the admitted doc- 
trine of the fatherhood and love of God. In proof 
of this fatherhood, and of this love of God, Mr. 
Foster quoted a large amount of scripture ; but in 
proof of his doctrine, that all men will be finally- 
holy and happy, drawn from the fatherhood and 
love of God, he gave us none. What did he quote 
Psalms lxxxix. for ? He attaches so much impor- 
tance to Psalms lxxxix. that he has repeated it here 
to-night. I will read the lxxxix Psalm, and hope to 
show you the utter falsity of his position. I read 
the entire paragraph, in which occurs the verse 
quoted by Mr. Foster, to prove the doctrine of res- 
toration after a limited punishment, the 33d verse. 
" Then thou spakest in vision to thy Holy One, and 
saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty ; I 
have exalted one chosen out of the people. I have 
found David my servant ; with my holy oil have I 
annointed him : with whom my hand shall be es- 
tablished; mine arm also shall strengthen him. 
The enemy shall not exact upon him : nor the son 
of wickedness afflict him. And I will beat down 
his foes before his face, and plague them that hate 
him. But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be 
with him ; and in my name shall his horn be ex- 
alted. I will set his hand also in the sea, and his 
right hand in the rivers. He shall cry unto me, 
thou art my Father, my God, and the rock of my 



ON UN1VERSALISM. 97 

salvation. Also I will make him my first born, higher 
than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep 
for him forevermore, and my covenant shall stand 
fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure 
forever, and his throne as the days of heaven. If his 
children forsake my law, and walk not in my judg- 
ments ; if they break my statutes and keep not my 
commandments ; then will I visit their transgres- 
sions with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. 
Nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not utterly 
take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail." 

This 33d verse cannot be misunderstood, when it 
is allowed to stand with the context. The mean- 
ing is perfectly plain. It is just as if my children 
should do wrong at school — the teacher will pun- 
ish them for their misdoing, but will still retain his 
friendly relations toward me. Mr. Foster would 
have you believe that the 33d verse, which prom- 
ises that God's goodness shall not be wholly taken 
away, and the context, which threatens God's judg- 
ments for sin, refer to the same persons. The re- 
bellious children are to be visited with the rod and 
with stripes, while David, their father, was to enjoy 
the favor of God. That is the plain, simple mean- 
ing of this passage, to which he attaches so much 
importance. 

The next passage that he quoted, was Isaiah 

lvii. 16. I will ask you to look at the whole of the 

paragraph, beginning with the 13th verse, and see 

if any support for the doctrine of universal salva- 

7 



98 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

tion can be tortured out of that. " When thou cri- 
est, let thy companions deliver thee ; but the wind 
shall carry them all away ; vanity shall take them : 
but he that putieth his trust in me, shall possess the 
land, and shall inherit my mountain ; and shall say, 
cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way ; take up 
the stumbling-block out of the way of my people. 
For thus saith the high and lofty one that inhabit- 
eth eternity, whose name is Holy, I dwell in the 
high and holy place, with him also that is of a con- 
trite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the 
humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. 
For I will not contend forever, neither will I always 
be wroth ; for the spirit should fail before me, and 
the souls which I have made." 

Upon this declaration — "the spirit would fail 
before me/^Mr. Foster hypothecated the statement, 
that the soul of man could not endure eternal pun- 
ishment. If God had determined that he would 
punish a being forever, could he not give that be- 
ing such a nature as would endure forever in end- 
less misery? The simple explanation of this pas- 
sage, is this ; that while there are certain humble 
and contrite souls against whom Jehovah says he 
will not contend forever, because they would fail 
before him, would sink in despair, not would be 
annihilated, as he would fain have you believe ; but 
would fail before him, it has no reference whatever, 
to the impenitent sinner, and gives him no ground 
to hope for escape from the just punishment that 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 99 

awaits the impenitent. What his condition is, is 
graphically described in the context immediately 
following this passage. We have here in close 
connection, the condition of the repenting and un- 
repenting sinner described, of which Mr. Foster 
himself is very well aware. Let us read on a lit- 
tle further, and make this matter clear. " For the 
iniquity of his covetousness was I wroth, and 
smote him, I hid him and was wroth, and he went 
on frowardly in the way of his heart; I have seen 
his ways and I will heed him ; I will lead him also, 
and restore comforts unto him, and to his mourn- 
ers. I create the fruit of the lips ; peace, peace to 
him that is afar off, and to him that is near, saith 
the Lord ; and I will heal him." This is so far 
descriptive of those who repent and turn to God. 
Now we go on a little further : " But the wicked 
are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose 
waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, 
saith my God, to the wicked." Thus much in ref- 
erence to his texts of scripture. Read them over 
when you go home, and read them carefully, and 
see if I have misread them. 

Mr. Foster, therefore, has not proved his posi- 
tion by his argument on the paternal love of God. 
He has not proved it by scripture ; for he has given 
us no scripture in proof. Every argument — every 
attempt that he has made to prove it from reason, 
impeaches the holiness and justice of God; and be- 
sides, his reasons are in conflict not only with scrip- 
ture, but with themselves. 



100 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

Mr. Foster's next argument, based upon tho fore- 
knowledge of God is very short. He offers no scrip- 
ture in proof of his argument, but much in proof 
of his basis. It would have been in good play if 
orthodoxy denied the foreknowledge of God ; but 
inasmuch as. it asserts that doctrine, his reasoning 
does not apply. Human reason cannot fathom the 
subject of the divine foreknowledge. Said Mr. 
Foster, " God would not have created any single 
creature for eternal woe." Again he says, " But if 
any creature shall suffer eternal woe, God foreknew 
it, and therefore foreordained it." Here he places 
himself in this dilemma — angels are God's crea- 
tures. Look at Gen. iL 1, if you want the proof. 
Job says they are the sons of God — Job xxxviii. 7. 
Hear what Jude says concerning angels, in the 6th 
verse of his epistle to the churches : "And the 
angels which kept not their first estate, but left 
their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlast- 
ing chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the 
great day." Here, then, is what is being done at 
this very time with some angels ; they are reserved 
in everlasting chains. The devil, is a fallen angel, 
as we believe, but he is not chained ; though he will 
be at the millenium. Just now he is going about 
like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. 
God created the devil and his angels in another 
state, not devils, but intelligent free agents ; and 
by their own will, they kept not their first estate. 
There is an everlasting fire prepared for the devil 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 101 

and his angels, and John, in his vision of the clos- 
ing scenes of time, says, " I saw the devil," (the 
being whom Mr. Foster would have you believe 
must be annihilated by his punishment, for his crime 
against God) " that deceived them, was cast into 
the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and 
the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day 
and night forever and ever." Rev. xx. 1CK When 
is this annihilation to take place in the case of the 
devil ? It must be after the end of " forever and 
ever." 

But, says Mr. Foster, " God must restore all his 
creatures to a state of happiness and holiness, or 
else be guilty of a depth of infamy in comparison 
with which the deeds of Nero, Caligula and Rob- 
espierre sink into utter insignificance." Shall the 
devil and his angels be restored to holiness and 
happiness, or shall God be branded with greater 
infamy than that of Nero or Caligula? Which 
horn of the dilemma will Mr. Foster take ? I hope 
he will make a note of that, and tell us whether 
the devil is to come up with his angels from the 
" everlasting fire " prepared for him. I would like 
for him to tell us whether he still adheres to that 
doctrine, that " every creature of God is to be re- 
stored to final happiness and holiness." We want 
to know whether God created the devil, or the devil 
God. Mr. Foster must prove that angels are not 
God's creatures, or he must take the consequences. 
If God would create angels, and punish them eter- 
nally for sins, that according to Mr. Foster he made 



102 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

them commit, why will he not deal in the same 
way with creatures who are a little lower than the 
angels? If this is sophistry, (you remember, no 
doubt, that he had a good deal to say about soph- 
istry) — if this is sophistry, it is possible for Mr. 
Foster to show the sophism ; and I trust he will 
take pains to point it out. 

Is it not hazardous for man, with bis limited 
powers, to set up a standard by which to weigh 
the prescience of the Infinite? Had Mr. Foster 
not better have paused, and weighed well the con- 
sequences, before saying that because God fore- 
knew all that should come to pass, he therefore 
foreordained it ? If that be true, God is the author 
of sin, and not only that, but he is, himself, the 
only sinner in the universe. Then the devil, and 
all the abominable beings whose crimes have 
stained the earth with blood, and blackened the 
pages of human history, were but the involuntary 
instruments, through which God enacts his stupen- 
dous catalogue of crimes. If that be true, then 
Satan is as good and true a servant of God, as Ga- 
briel. Then Nero, besmearing the christians with 
combustibles, and burning them by night in the 
gardens of his palace, while he drove his chariot 
by the light of the flames, and Domitian, who alone 
sent forty thousand christians to martyrdom — these 
cruel monsters were as faithful servants of God as 
was the apostle Paul, or any one of the devoted 
ministers of the gospel, in either ancient or mod- 
ern times ! 



THIRD NIGHT. 



MR. FOSTER'S THIRD SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : 

Respected Hearers : 

Before proceeding with my affirmative argument, 
there are some things in Mr. Lozier's last speech, 
to which I desire to call special attention. And 
first, I will say I did not use the term vile or 
abuse, in alluding to his carricature of my doctrines. 
I wish to be reported correctly. I am glad, how- 
ever, to note the fact, that he is disposed to be 
more serious, and to indulge less in levity and rid- 
icule. If his doctrine be true, I wonder that he 
ever smiles, or tries to excite the mirthfulness of 
his audience. Endless torment! Just think of it! 
If true, there is not a family circle in all the land 
that will not be broken up ! No one can fully re- 
alize the consequences of this doctrine, without 
feeling sad, wretched and melancholy. 

You now see the result of this two days' delay in 
replying to my arguments. Those that I shall in- 
troduce to-night, will have to go unanswered, 



104 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

which, perhaps, is the shortest way of getting rid 
of them. 

Most of the passages introduced by Mr. Lozier, 
as an offset to my argument on the divine pa- 
ternity, I readily grant, teach that men, by obedi- 
ence, become characteristically children of God; 
and this I labored to prove at the time I presented 
the argument. But did he notice the main point 
in the argument? It was this, that God's love 
was the same in nature as that of good earthly 
parents, differing only in degree, being more infin- 
ite and enduring! That while the mother may 
forget her child, God has assured us that he will 
not forget his children! I quoted Psalms lxxxix. 
30-33, where it is said, " If his children forsake my 
law, and walk not in my judgments ; and if they 
break my statutes, and keep not my command- 
ments, then will I visit their transgressions with 
the rod, and their iniquities with stripes. Never- 
theless, my loving kindness will I not utterly take 
from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail." Upon 
this Mr. Lozier makes a quibble, because in quot- 
ing from memory, I read the word " them" instead 
of " him," in the last verse. Either reading would 
hold equally good, so far as the argument is con- 
cerned. I quoted it, as indicating a principle of the 
divine government. That though God would pun- 
ish his children, still he would not utterly take 
away his loving kindness from them, or suffer his 
faithfulness to fail! But who was David, the 



ON UNIVERSALISM- 105 

" him" referred to ? None other, than the person 
who slew the Hittite, that he might obtain his 
wife. David, who at one time was in hell in con- 
sequence of his wickedness. See Psalms cxvi. 3 : 
" The sorrows of death compassed me about, the 
pains of hell gat hold upon me P And again, in 
Psalms lxxxvi. 13, we read : " For great is thy 
mercy toward me ; and thou hast delivered my soul 
from the lowest hell!" Here we have David in 
hell, and delivered from hell, and all in this world . r 
Will Mr. Lozier tell us where there is a hell lower 
than the lowest ? Our argument in either case, is 
good, whether applied to David or his children, that 
God will not "utterly take his loving kindness 
from them, or suffer his faithfulness to fail !" 

But how does he meet the argument upon Isaiah 
lvii. 16 : " For I will not contend forever, neither 
will I be always wroth ; for the spirit would fail 
before me, and the souls that 1 have made ?" Sim- 
ply by asking a question, " If God had determined 
that he would punish a being- forever, could he 
not give that being such a nature, as would endure 
forever in endless misery V For ought we know,, 
God could have done so. But has he thus deter- 
mined ? We answer no ! Why did not Mr. Lo- 
zier give us the proof of his assumption ? 

Upon this passage, it will be seen, that he aban- 
dons his doctrine of free agency, and accepts that 
of foreordination. So that his fine spun argument 
upon that subject becomes a nullity. Just think 



106 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

-^ of it ! God determining to punish a being forever, 
and giving him a nature that would enable him to 
endure endless misery! What worse could the 
devil himself do? Let us not mock the character 
of God thus, and believe him capable of such cru- 
elty and injustice! He refers to the closing part 
of the chapter, where it is said, " But the wicked 
are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest ; 
whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no 
peace saith my God to the wicked!" Did you 
note the tense when he quoted the passages ? It 
does not say " the wicked shall be like the troubled 
sea? but "are" already, like the troubled sea! 
Nor is it said, there will be no peace to the wicked 
finally; but "there is no peace to the wicked /" 
Now, right here I This is what he means ! No 
reference at all to the future world ! 

But Mr. Lozier says, what parent would not 
prevent sickness, and all other evils, if he had the 
power ? Hence, he argues, that we make earthly 
parents better than God. He overlooks the fact, 
that the present is but an embryo state — that 
"man was made subject to vanity, not willingly, 
but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same 
in hope." That sin, and all other evils, are but 
permissions of God's providence, which are ulti- 
mately to be overcome with good. The argument 
of Mr. Lozier upon this point, is that of the Deist 
and Atheist, who will cite you in proof of their 
.systems to the sin and evil in the world! and 



ON UNIVERSALIS*!. 107 

failing to harmonize these with their ideas of a 
perfect God, they throw aside revelation altogether. 
And thus, in his zeal to demolish Universalism, 
does Mr. Lozier join hands with the infidel in un- 
dermining the beautiful superstructure of the chris- 
tian religion. But take another view of this sub- 
ject. Sin, evil, pain, and death are in the world. 
How came they here ? They must exist either in 
accordance with, or against God's will and pleas- 
ure. I take the ground that they are here in har- 
mony with the divine will ; and though God does 
not compel men to sin, yet for wise reasons he has 
exposed them to temptation, and subjected them 
to imperfection. Will Mr. Lozier take the ground 
that they exist against God's will and pur- 
pose ? Such an argument would be fatal to his 
own hopes of happiness in the future world. If 
the evils, which he specifies, exist in the present 
world against God's will, they may exist against 
God's will in the future world, and afflict any and 
all beings ! To show the suicidal nature of Mr. 
Lozier's argument, let us view it from another 
stand point. He contends that wicked men are 
not punished in this life, or so little, that it hardly 
deserves the name of punishment. That they are 
happy and prosperous here ; and all this, against 
Gods will! What is to prevent them from be- 
coming equally happy in the future state ? It will 
not do to say, that God has willed or purposed a 
different state of things there ! His will can as 
easily be thwarted in that world as this ! But the 



108 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

fact is, God's will is supreme. " He worketh all 
things after the counsel of his own will!" "He 
doeth according to his will, in the army of heaven, 
and among the inhabitants of earth /" 

But Mr. Lozier says, we make God the author 
of sin and evil, and in fact, according to our sys- 
tem, he is the only sinner in the universe! We 
have already told you how God is the author of 
evil, and why it is permitted. We now turn his 
attention to some plain testimonies upon the sub- 
ject. In Isaiah xlv. 7, we have this strong lan- 
guage : " I form the light, and create darkness : 
I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all 
these things //" In Amos iii. 6, language equally 
forcible is employed : " Shall a trumpet be blown 
in the city, and the people not be afraid ? Shall 
there be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done 
it ?*' Let Mr. Lozier notice these passages, and 
what I have said upon the subject. Ah ! but he 
will want two days to prepare his reply, and doubt- 
less the aid of some of his brethren, before he can 
remove our argument. 

He quotes another passage that I introduced, 
and tells you that certain parts of it were empha- 
sized, and the rest hastily passed over. John iii. 
16, " For God so loved the world that he gave his 
only begotton Son, that whosoever believeth in 
him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." 
That the emphasis was placed upon the phrase 
" so loved" to to the neglect of the latter part of 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 109 

the verse, " that whosoever believeth in him should 
not perish but have everlasting' life !" Now the 
great trouble with Mr. Lozier is, that a phrase 
always means the same thing, wherever it occurs. 
The words "eternal life" or "everlasting life" 
always means a state of bliss in the immortal world! 
To be saved, always means deliverance from some 
awful calamity in the eternal world ! Hell always 
means a place of torment in the future state ! Now 
he knows better than this — if he does not, he ought 
to. These words and phrases are always to be 
determined by the connection in which they stand 
recorded, as well as by reference to parallel passa- 
ges. The phrases " eternal life," " everlasting life," 
"kingdom of God," "kingdom of heaven," are 
used in a limited sense, in nine cases out of ten. 
In fact, it is doubtful, if there is more than one or 
two passages, where they are at all applicable to 
the future state. John says, " This is life eternal, 
that they might know thee, the only true God, and 
Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." John xvii. 3. 
In Luke xvii. 20, 21, we read, " The kingdom of 
God cometh not with observation. Neither shall 
they say, lo here ! or lo there ! for behold, the king- 
dom of God is within you!" Again, in Rom. xiv. 
17, we have this testimony, " For the kingdom of 
God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and 
peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost!" In the pas- 
sage under consideration, the words, "everlasting 
life" and "perish" occur in anthesis. Mr. Lozier 



110 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

assumes that the term perish is synonymous with 
endless punishment ! Let us take a few examples, 
and try Mr. Lozier's rule of interpretation. In 
Deut. xxviii. 20, Moses said to the people, " The 
Lord shall send upon thee, cursing, vexation and 
rebuke * * * until thou be destroyed, until thou 
perish quickly /" Can endless torment be endured 
quickly ? In Jer. x. 11, we read, " The gods that 
have not made the heavens and the earth, even 
they shall perish /" But does Mr. Lozier believe 
that the wooden and silver gods of the heathen are 
to suffer endless torment ! " And yet such an ab- 
surdity is involved in his rule of interpretation. In 
Job xxxiv. 15, the prophet says, " All flesh shall per- 
ish together /" But did he mean to teach the doc- 
trine of universal damnation in the passage ? Ac- 
cording to Mr. Lozier's definition of the term "per- 
ish," there is no avoiding this conclusion. But ac- 
cording to Isaiah, even the " righteous perisheth." 
Isaiah lvii. 1, he says, " The righteous perisheth, and 
no man layeth it to heart !" But are they to suf- 
fer endless punishment? Upon this rule of inter- 
pretation, we should make the Bible inconsistent 
and absurd throughout its teachings. The perish- 
ing in John was a state of moral death, darkness, 
and depravity — the opposite to the everlasting life 
enjoyed by the believer. 

Mr. Lozier says in the next place, that John saw 
the devil whom I said was to be destroyed, cast 
into the pit and lake of fire, where he is to be "tor- 
mented forever and ever?" If the devil is to be 



ON" UNIVERSALISKI. Ill 

destroyed, he says it " must be some time after the 
forever and ever." 

Now, does not Mr. Lozier know that this being- 
cast into the "pit and lake of fire," was a figure, 
denoting his utter destruction ! Read the whole 
passage : " And the devil which deceived them, was 
cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the 
beast and false prophet are, and shall be tormented 
day and night, forever and ever !" Will Mr. Lozier 
pretend that there are days and nights in eternity ? 
If not, why adduce this passage to prove the end- 
less torment of the devil ? The same figure expres- 
sive of torment, he will find in Isaiah xxxiv., where 
the judgment and destruction of Idumea is de- 
scribed : " For my sword shall be bathed in heaven ; 
behold it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon 
the people of my curse to judgment * * * And 
the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, 
and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land 
thereof shall become as burning pitch. It shall 
not be quenched night nor day ; the smoke thereof 
shall go up forever and ever /" But even after all 
this, we are told that the "cormorant and the 
bittern shall possess it ; the owl also, and the raven 
shall dwell in it!" Surely this language is not ap- 
plicable to the future state. Why, then, apply the 
figure of the Revelator to that state, when his met- 
aphor was the same employed by the prophets ? 

While upon the destruction of the devil, will 
Mr. Lozier tell us which one of the many devils 



1 



112 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

we read of in the Bible, it is, that is to be cast into 
this lake of fire ? Judas was called a devil ! Pe- 
ter was called a satan ! and we find mention made 
of various other devils. Was it Judas ? or Peter ? 
or some one else, that was to be cast into this lake 
of fire ? Give us some light on this subject, Mr. 
Lozier. The word devil is from the Greek word 
diabolos, and means, simply, adversary — -false ac- 
cuser, etc. The opposers of the Savior, and his re- 
ligion, were devils, and were referred to as such in 
the sacred record. 

Thus much in reply to Mr. Lozier's last speech. 
Had he replied to me at once, upon each evening, 
instead of waiting two days, I should not have had 
to consume time, that should have been devoted to 
the presentation of new arguments. Some thirteen 
arguments, that I had intended presenting, will 
have to be omitted, unless I have an opportunity 
of introducing them under the second proposition, 
in the form of an alibi, or negative testimonies 
against the doctrine of endless punishment. 

My last argument that I shall have the privilege 
of presenting under this proposition, is predicated 
upon the resurrection of the dead. That all man- 
kind will be raised from the dead, is a proposition 
that no one will deny. In fact, this is the corner 
stone upon which Christianity is based. The only 
difference of opinion is, as to the results of the res- 
urrection. Shall the resurrection result in a life 
unending and glorious, for the whole human family, 



ON UNIVERSAL ISM. 113 

or will a part be raised as subjects of God's infinite 
wrath and vengeance ? That all mankind will be 
raised from the dead, and be made like unto the 
angels, happy and immortal, I firmly believe — while 
Mr. Lozier contends for the opposite sentiment, 
that of the endless suffering of myriads of the sub- 
jects of the resurrection. But what do the scrip- 
tures teach ? Turn to 1st Cor. xv. 21 : " For since 
by man came death, by man also came the resur- 
rection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even 
so in Christ shall all be made alive /" The same 
all who die in Adam, are to be made alive in 
Christ! See also the testimony from verse 23d to 
28th: "But every man in his own order: Christ 
the first fruits ; afterward they that are Christ's at 
at his coming. Then cometh the end, w r hen he 
shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even 
the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, 
and all authority, and power. For he must reign 
till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The 
last enemy that shall be destroyed, is death /" Or 
leaving out the supplied words, this verse should 
read as it does in the original : " The last enemy 
shall be destroyed, death !" He then says, " For 
he hath put all things under his feet. But when 
he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest 
that he is excepted, which did put all things under 
him. All when all things shall be subdued unto 
him, then shall the Son also himself be subject 
unto him that put all things under him, that God 
8 



114 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

may be all in all /" Here the apostle speaks of the 
destruction of all enemies, including death, which is 
the last! Where then, will there be any opposing 
element to man's happiness ? Where then, will 
be the devil, who figures so conspicuously in Mr. 
Lozier's speeches ? All enemies destroyed ! God, 
all in all! This is the grand ultimatum that is to 
follow the resurrection of all who die in Adam ! 
They are to be made holy and happy! 

But the Apostle goes farther, and makes the ar- 
gument more complete. Turn to the 35th verse, 
" But some man will say, how are the dead raised 
up, and with what body do they come ?" You 
will mark the fact, there is no inquiry as to how 
men efo"e?"But how are they raised up?" This 
was the particular point of inquiry. The Apostle 
then proceeds with the answer, and in the 42d 
verse says, " So also is the resurrection of the dead. 
It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 
It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is 
sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown 
a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There 
is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 
And so it is written, the first man, Adam, was 
made a living soul, the last Adam was made a 
quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first 
which is spiritual, but that which is natural ; and 
afterward that which is spiritual. The first man 
is of the earth, earthy ; the second man is the Lord 
from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also 



ON UNIVERSALIS*!. 



115 



that are earthy ; and as is the heavenly, such are 
they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne 
the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the im- 
age of the heavenly /" Here the predicate of the 
heavenly image, is the fact that we have borne the 
image of the earthy ! As many as have died in 
Adam, as many as have borne the image of the 
earthy, are to be made alive in Christ, and to bear 
the image of the heavenly ! But Mr, Lozier con- 
tends that there is to be no change after death — 
that as "death leaves us, so judgment finds us "— 
that if we die sinners, we shall be raised up sin- 
ners, and continue in sin and suffering through the 
endless ages of the future. But the whole scope 
of the Apostle's argument is to show that there 
will be a great, a wonderful change ! That our re- 
lations to the spiritual world will be entirely differ- 
ent from what they are in the present existence. 
That here, we are surrounded by all the elements 
of imperfection and corruption — while there, we 
shall be freed from all such influences, and be pre- 
pared to enter upon a higher, purer, and more glo- 
rious state of being! He concludes his argument 
by declaring emphatically that there shall be a 
change after death. Verses 50th to the 57th, "Now 
this I say brethren, that flesh and blood cannot 
inherit the kingdom of God ; neither doth corrup- 
tion inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a 
mystery ; we shall not all sleep, but ive shall all be 
changed! In a moment, in the twinkling of an 



116 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

eye, at the last trump ; for the trumpet shall sound, 
and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we 
shall be changed! For this corruptible must put 
on incorruption, and this mortal must put on im- 
mortality. So when this corruptible shall have put 
on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on 
immortality, then shall be brought to pass the say- 
ing that is written, Death is swallowed up in vic- 
tory." Isaiah xxv. 6-8. He ends his argument, 
with the triumphant exclamation, "O death, where 
is thy sting ? O grave, where is thy victory ? The 
sting of death is sin ; and the strength of sin is the 
law. But thanks be to God, which hath given us 
the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." The 
argument of the apostle is complete, and needs no 
comment. There is no escaping the conclusion, 
that it embodies the resurrection of all mankind 
to a state of immortal blessedness and peace. And 
until Mr. Lozier can prove that an incorruptible 
and an immortal being- can sin and suffer, our prop- 
osition will stand in full force and effect. In Matt, 
xxii. 22-32, we have also strong testimony in con- 
firmation of that already adduced. " The same 
day came to him the Sadducees, which say that 
there is no resurrection, and asked him saying, 
Master, Moses said, if a man die, having no chil- 
dren, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up 
seed unto his brother. Now there were with us 
seven brethren, and the first when he had married 
a wife, deceased ; and having no issue, left his wife 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 117 

unto his brother. Likewise, the second also, and 
the third unto the seventh. And last of all, the 
woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection 
whose wife shall she be of the seven, for they all 
had her. Jesus answered, and said unto them, ye 
do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of 
God! For in the resurrection, they neither marry 
nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in 
heaven /" See also parallel passages in Mark xii. 
18-27. Luke xx. 35-38. The question of the 
Saducees had reference to the resurrection of the 
dead in general, without respect to persons or par- 
ties. No reference is had to two classes. Hence 
the Savior says, " In the resurrection, they neither 
marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the 
angels in heaven /" Angels in heaven are holy and 
happy ; therefore, such is to be the condition of all 
who are subjects of the resurrection ! 

But my time is out. I leave my argument in 
the hands of the audience, trusting that you will 
duly consider the testimonies presented, and their 
bearing upon the proposition under discussion. I 
have no idea that Mr. Lozier will attempt a reply, 
as his rule of two days preparation, forbid it. 



118 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

MR. LOZIER'S THIRD REPLY. 
Messrs. Moderators : 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 
In the beginning of Mr. Foster's speech, on the last 
evening of discussion, it will be remembered that 
he excited his audience to the stamping point, by 
reiterating my remark about the "first Universalist 
preacher," Cain and Abel, Pharaoh, the Canaanites, 
and so on, and alluding also to the verses I read in 
the course of my first speech. He concluded, by 
saying that those verses were not original, and that 
he had the whole speech, almost, in Hall's " Uni- 
versal] sm Against Itself," as also the poetry. I 
wish simply to say, that up to the time I made 
that speech, I had not seen the book for half a 
dozen years. My attention was called to the 
verses by a cherished friend, and a minister of the 
Presbyterian church, and at the time were dis- 
tinctly credited by me to another author. As to 
the other things in my speech, which he says are 
in that book, he is mistaken. I find, however, 
since that time, that Hall, in that book, does speak 
«of the Sodomites, Noah, and the Canaanites, as 
they occur in the scripture record ; but the asser- 
tion he made, that I employed either the language 
of that book, or anything contained in it except 
the verses, is an assertion that can be made good, 
if true ; and I have, for that purpose, brought the 
manuscript containing my remarks, and also the 
book, (which I have succeeded in procuring since 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 119 

the occasion referred to,) and I desire Mr. Foster 
to take them both, and point out to you the re- 
marks that I made, and which, as he said, were 
borrowed from that book. I will consent, on my 
part — and the judges will, no doubt, do so toe — 
that he shall have full time to do this, without cur- 
tailing the time allowed him for the discussion. 
If he succeeds in doing so, he will prove me to be 
a plagiarist ; if he fails to do so, then I will ask 
him to be so good as to favor us with a brief 
homily upon a passage of scripture contained in 
Exodus xx., which reads : " Thou shalt not bear 
false witness against thy neighbor." 

Mr. Foster says, the doctrine the devil preached 
to Eve, in the garden of Eden, is the same kind of 
a doctrine that I preach : " In the day that thou 
eatest thereof ] thou shalt surely die." By reference 
to the passage, Gen. ii. 16, 17, you will find that 
Moses does not attribute these words, " In the day 
thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die," to the 
devil, but to the Lord God. There is a slight dif- 
ference of opinion, upon that point, between Moses 
and Mr. Foster. I believe, under all the circum- 
stances, I prefer the authority of Moses. Mr. Fos- 
ter says, the devil used the language, but Moses 
says it was God that used it. The devil told Eve 
that God lied, and Mr. Foster repeats it. So, if 
the devil did not preach Universalism, the Univer- 
salist preaches devilism ! 

He says, that if Jeff. Davis repented and became 



120 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

a christian, I would have to associate with him. 
We admit, that if he came to heaven washed from 
his sins, and made white in the blood of the lamb, 
we would have to treat him as we would any other 
redeemed sinner ; but Mr. Foster intends to bring 
him there independently of the blood of Christ, 
and compel us to fellowship and associate with 
him forever, just as he is. That is the difference. 

He alludes to my assertion, that the scriptures 
do not teach the doctrine, nor intimate it, of the 
final holiness and happiness of all mankind, from 
the beginning of Genesis to the end Revelation, as 
being a mere assertion. He says, " Let him prove 
it*" For an old debater, this is tolerably cool. 
What is the rule that prevails in all discussions of 
this kind ? It is, that the burden of proof rests 
with the affirmant. If I am incorrect in this, cer- 
tainly the Moderators will correct me. He has the 
affirmative, and I the negative. He affirms a thing 
to be so, which I deny ; and then he cries out, 
" Let him prove it." Well, I will prove it, if he 
will listen till I read the whole Bible through ; for 
that is the only way I know of to prove that a 
thing is not in the Bible. It is not incumbent 
upon the negative to show anything of the kind. 

Now we come to examine Mr. Foster's fourth 
argument, based upon the fact, admitted by all 
parties before the discussion began, that God is the 
creator and ruler of the universe ; but which fact, 
he laboriously and extensively quoted scripture to 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 121 

prove. No sooner does he announce the basis of his 
argument, than he launches out at once into the 
boundless sea of fatalism. He says that God 
designs the final happiness of all his intelligent 
creatures, and will have no one thwart his designs. 
And says further, that if God should not do this, 
he would be guilty of greater infamy than that of 
Nero, Caligula or Robespierre. But this is not the 
only thing he says. He asserts that God designs 
all that comes to pass. If that be true, he can 
with propriety repeat his impious assertion that 
God is worse than the tyrants of old ; for upon that 
ground, it would be easy to demonstrate that God 
is just as much worse than those men, as the as- 
sassin is worse than the knife he uses ; for they are 
only instruments in the hands of the Almighty. 
Mr. Foster's view, if it be correct, places God's 
character and conduct in glaring antagonism. 
Every perfection of the Deity is opposed by his 
own acts. God is love ; yet he has made millions 
of men to kate him, and to hate his Son, and has 
filled the devil, and all his angels, with hatred to 
God and man. God is holy ; but he has caused 
millions to burn with lust, and revel in debauchery 
and licentiousness. God is just ; yet he has made 
millions to groan and writhe beneath the crushing 
heel of injustice and oppression. God is merciful, 
and shows his mercy in its fulness, by raising up 
the traitor, the murderer, the robber, the gambler, 
the seducer, and the drunkard maker, to destroy 
the lives, property, and happiness of mankind. 



122 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

Now, Mr. Foster is to prove his proposition by- 
scripture and reason. If his reasoning is correct, 
and the scriptures are also correct, then God not 
only opposes his own nature by his actions, but 
punishes the instruments of his own infamy, for 
executing his irresistible decrees. For, be it re- 
membered, Mr. Foster says, every transgressor 
shall endure, in his own person, the full punish- 
ment prescribed, and there is no avenue of escape 
whatever, Now, will Mr. Foster please to make a 
note of this, and answer this one question to-night: 
If God ordains man to commit every sin that he 
commits, on what principle of justice does he in- 
flict this punishment ? 

Furthermore, this theory of Mr. Foster's, degrades 
the Bible. If God ordains every act of virtue, or 
of vice, that man commits, then his written word 
is a mere mockery of man's helplessness, and a 
tissue of hypocrisy from beginning to end — a col- 
lection of precepts and laws, of promises and pen- 
alties, promulgated by Jehovah to millions of men, 
whom he had foreordained should treat it with de- 
rision and contempt! 

Another of Mr. Foster's inconsistencies is this 
On his theory, God has ordained, him to preach 
the final holiness and happiness of all mankind, 
whether they will or no ; while me, he has ordained 
to preach the final holiness and happiness of those 
only who, by hearty repentance and true faith, 
come to God through Jesus Christ. God has or- 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 123 

dained the preaching of both these doctrines, and 
he has ordained that we should both believe them. 
He has not only ordained our belief, but he has also 
ordained what all these people shall believe. 
Hence, according to that doctrine, we are, neither 
of us, responsible for what we believe, or capable 
of affecting the belief of each other, or of any of 
our hearers. God has foreordained what they 
shall believe. 

He said, I was guilty of unchristianlike conduct 
and so on. He should remember that God has 
foreordained whatever should come to pass — I 
could not help it. If his theory is correct, he is 
spending a greal of study and time in a bootless 
business, for all is foreordained, and nothing can 
come of it. 

We know that the lower order of beings, the 
brute creation and inanimate nature, moves in 
complete obedience and subserviency to the will of 
God. If man is under the same involuntary con- 
trol, why are the actions of men's lives — their con- 
duct — so discordant ? God must have a multitude 
of wills, all operating in different directions, and 
it must be a grave question to settle, which of his 
wills will come out ahead at last. 

He quoted from the Ixxxix. Psalm, where God 
promised not to take away his loving kindness 
from David. He still holds to his doctrine of fa- 
tality. At first he said, they must be punished for 
their rebellion against God ; now he says, never- 



124 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

theless, finally God will make all his people happy. 
In the same connection, he quotes Paul to the He- 
brews, in proof of the position that the devil is to 
be destroyed. He represents here to-night that God 
was the great first cause of all things, devil and all. 
John says all things were made by him. Hence 
we have these three propositions. First, the devil 
is to be destroyed. Second, the devil is one of 
God's creatures ; and thirdly, as every creature of 
God is included in his scheme, the devil is to be 
finally holy and happy. 

Mr. Foster continues, and says that all are not 
now obedient servants unto God, and many may 
not die such, but that this will not prove that they 
may not become so hereafter. Here is his hell- 
redemption theory again. He quoted the sayings 
of Christ, that " Love is the fulfilling of the law," 
and that " not one jot nor one tittle of the law 
should pass till all be fulfilled." Observe, that 
God does not say that not a jot nor tittle should 
pass till all fulfill the law, but until all be fulfilled. 
Now we all recognize the fact as true, that the 
laws are fulfilled in this community ; but that does 
not imply that there are none who break them. 
While there are some who violate the laws of the 
land, there are those who fulfill them, and there- 
fore we would say that the laws are fulfilled. They 
are fulfilled by those who do fulfill them. But, 
granting Mr. Foster's assumption for the sake of 
the argument, what have we then ? Simply this — 



ON UNIVERSALISM. , 125 

that all men are to be brought to love God su- 
premely, and their neighbor as themselves, and 
that change is to take place sometime between 
their exit from earth, and their entrance into heaven. 
This remarkable change is to be brought about by- 
punishment — there is to be a sort of sulphurous 
reform school, in which God will punish the wicked 
until they love him and each other, and thus be- 
come fit subjects for heaven. All the wicked are 
to depart, accursed, into " everlasting fire " and 
stay there until they not only love God, but their 
neighbor too — all will be neighbors there — the devil 
and his angels, as well as all wicked men ; hence 
before any man can ever escape from that place he 
must have learned to love the devil, whose machi- 
nations got him into that place of torment. We 
read that there is to be a " beast " there, and a 
" false prophet" — probably several of them. Turn 
to the prohecy of Ezekiel, chapter xiii. and you will 
find that it is made up largely of denunciations of 
God's vengeance upon false prophets. God there 
speaks in this wise: " Son of man, prophesy against 
the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say unto 
them that prophesy out of their own hearts ; hear 
ye the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord 
God ; Wo unto the foolish prophets that follow 
their own spirits and have seen nothing." The 
cause for which this woe is pronounced on these 
false prophets, is stated in the 22d verse : " Be- 
cause with lies ye have made the heart of the 



126 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

righteous sad, whom I have not made sad." That 
is only a part of it ; hear the rest : " and strength- 
ened the hands of the wicked, that he should not 
return from his wicked way, by promising him life." 
Suppose now, sir, that you and I, by our preach- 
ing, should cause some one to go there, or many 
men to go there — and should finally go there our- 
selves, and meet these unfortunate victims of our 
false phrophecies, do you not think it would take 
a good deal of fire and brimstone to make them 
love us? 

Mr. Foster referred also, to Rom. xiii. 9, " For 
this, Thou shalt not commit adultery ; Thou shalt 
not steal; Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not 
bear false witness ; Thou shalt not covert ; and if 
there be any other commandment, it is briefly com- 
prehended in this saying, namely : Thou shalt love 
thy neighbor as thyself." He quoted only a part 
of this passage. I give you the whole. Next 
comes his quotations of God's promise to Abra- 
ham, Isaac and Jacob, and their families. What 
was this promised seed of Abraham ? It was the 
Lord Jesus Christ. The gospel of Chrsst is just 
such a blessing as was promised by God to all the 
nations and families of the earth. In it all the 
families of the earth have been blessed. It has 
made the wilderness to rejoice, and the desert to 
blossom like the rose. Wherever it goes it blesses 
the whole people. What is it that makes America 
different from heathen lands to-day ? It is the in- 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 127 

fluence of the religion of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
and nothing else. We enjoy no blessing as a peo- 
ple, or as individuals, which cannot be traced direct- 
ly to Christianity as its source. Show me a human 
being who is not blessed and benefitted through 
Christianity, and I will then consider the argument 
further. 

Mr. Foster's fifth argument is based upon the 
will of God. He quoted Paul to Timothy, 1st 
Epistle, ii. 4, where the language occurs, with ref- 
erence to God: " Who will have all men saved." 
He only read a part of this verse, as has been the 
case in many other instances; he makes off with 
this much of it before the rest of it overwhelms him. 
L*et us have it all: "Who will have all men to be 
saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." 
Mr. Foster says the term "will" means God's ab- 
stract will and purpose to save all men. We, on the 
other hand, understand it to refer to his desire that 
they should be saved, and come to the knowledge 
of the truth. Had he meant the other, he would 
have said it ; but he did not. He expresses simply 
his desire that all men shall be saved in the way 
that he has provided. He said: "I am. the way, 
and the truth, and the life, and no man cometh un- 
to the Father but by me." Do all men come to 
Christ — do all men come to the knowledge of the 
truth through him ? If God wills it, they do, be- 
cause it is his will. Christ said to the Jews : 
" Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye 



128 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

have eternal life;" but he also used this language 
to them : " But ye will not come to me that ye 
might have life." He wished them to come, but 
they willed not to come, and rejected life ; for they 
rejected Christ, and Christ said, " No man cometh 
to the Father but by me." Mr. Foster says, how- 
ever, that all men shall come to the Father, and many 
hope to come to God in some way or other. Christ 
says he is the only way, and if all men ever come 
to God, some of them must be the characters allu- 
ded to in John x. where Christ says, "If any man 
enter not by the door into the sheep-fold, but climb- 
eth up some other way, the same is a thief and a 
robber." If a person who enters the earthly sheep- 
fold in any other way than by the door, is a thief 
and a robber, what kind of a person is the man 
who shall seek to get into heaven in any other way 
than that which God has prepared — through re- 
pentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? 

But, says Mr. Foster, God willed all men to be 
saved, and Christ came to do the will of God in 
all things. Very well; but in Lev. xix. and xx. we 
learn that God also willed all men to be holy — holy 
in all things. Are they holy ? Do they perfectly 
conform to the law of God ? No. The language 
of inspiration is, that " God is not in all their 
thoughts." Yet God wills that they should be 
holy. Christ did the will of the Father, and was 
holy, but the world does not obey the will of God. 
The world is not holy. 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 129 

Mr. Foster quotes the words of Christ addressed 
to the Father, as evidence that none are to be lost. 
And in quoting Christ's language, to prove uni- 
versal salvation, he is very brief, as might naturally 
be expected. He has so many arguments pressing 
upon him, just at this point, that he does not give 
us the whole passage entire, but cuts it short. 
Here is his quotation from John xvii. 12: "Those 
that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them 
is lost, but the son of perdition ; that the scriptures 
might be fulfilled." That looks very well, standing 
alone ; but let us read the context, beginning back 
at the 6th verse : " I have manifested thy name unto 
the men which thou gavest me out of the world : 
thine they were, and thou gavest them me ; and 
they have kept thy word. Now they have known 
that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are 
of thee; for I have given unto them the words 
which thou gavest me ; and they have received 
them, and have known surely that I came out from 
thee, and they have believed that thou didst send 
me. I pray for them : I pray not for the world, 
but for them which thou has given me ; for they 
are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are 
mine ; and I am glorified in them. And now I 
am no more in the world, but these are in the 
world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep 
through thine own name those whom thou hast 
given me, that they may be one, as we are. 
Whilst I was with them in the world, I kept them 
9 



130 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



in thy name." You see he is praying for his dis- 
ciples. Now we come to Mr. Foster's quotation-. 
" Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none 
of them is lost." There Mr. Foster ends his quo- 
tation ; but, unfortunately for his cause, the sen- 
tence does not end there ; it goes on — " None of 
them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the 
scriptures might be fulfilled." Who was the " son 
of perdition ?" Judas, was the son of perdition. It 
could not have been the devil, for he was not one 
of the "men whom thou gavest me." At all 
events, whether it was Judas Iscariot, or not, we 
have here one instance, at least, of one human be- 
ing lost ; and lost in the sense in which Mr. Foster 
declares men cannot be lost. If this son of per- 
dition was a human being, then Mr. Foster is de- 
feated ; and that it was a human being, is clearly 
evident from the language of Christ, iC The men 
whom thou gavest me out of the world," in which 
expression the son of perdition is evidently in- 
cluded. The parallel passages of scripture, indi- 
cate beyond doubt, that it was Judas. The mar- 
gin refers to John xiii. 18 : "I speak not of you all ; 
I know whom I have chosen : but that the scrip- 
tures may be fulfilled, he that eateth bread with 
me, hath lifted up his heel against me." This lan- 
guage is addressed by Christ to his disciples, and 
the reference is to Judas. The scripture which 
Christ speaks of as being fulfilled, is in Psalms 
xli. 9 : " Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 131 

I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up 
his heel against me." From these, the marginal 
reference is to Acts i. 16, where the Apostle Peter 
stood up, in the midst of the disciples, and said : 
" Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have 
been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth 
of David spake before concerning Judas, which 
was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was 
numbered with us, and had obtained part of this 
ministry." So, you see, Mr. Foster has introduced 
here, for the purpose of proving universal salvation, 
a passage of scripture which declares that the son 
of perdition should be lost. He has utterly failed 
to produce a single passage of scripture, that says 
all men shall be finally saved. After all his efforts, 
he has only succeeded in showing that one man, 
at least, was lost ; and so long as a single human 
being is lost, his position cannot be maintained. 
He is to prove that all men are to be saved, and a 
solitary exception destroys his position. 

Mr. Foster refers to a passage in 1st Corinthians, 
xv., for what, he says, is one of the Apostle Paul's 
most convincing arguments in favor of of the doc- 
trine of universal salvation. I hope you will ex- 
amine it. In the 22d verse, he says, " For as in 
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made 
alive." But, does being " made alive," mean that 
all are to enjoy eternal happiness ? No ; it means 
precisely what it says. Let us read on a little 
further: " Bat every man in his own order: Christ 



132 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

the first fruits ; afterward, they that are Christ's at 
his coming." But who are " Christ's at his com- 
ing?" Paul says, in Rom. viii. 9: "If any man 
hath not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his.'' 
Turn now to Malachi, and read, beginning at the 
iii. 16 : " Then they that feared the Lord spake of- 
ten one to another : and the Lord hearkened and 
heard it : and a book of remembrance was written 
before him, for them that feared the Lord, and that 
thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, 
saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make 
up my jewels ; and I will spare them, as a man 
spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall 
ye return and discern between the righteous and 
the wicked, between him that serveth God, and 
him that serveth him not. For behold, the day 
cometh, that shall burn as an oven ; and all the 
proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stub- 
ble ; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, 
saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them 
neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear 
my name, shall the sun of righteousness arise with 
healing in his wings ; and ye shall go forth, and 
grow up as calves of the stall." From these pas- 
sages, we see that those who die with the spirit of 
Christ in them, are to be his at his coming — they, 
and none others. We see, too, that there is to be 
a difference " between the righteous and the 
wicked, between him that serveth God and him 
that serveth him not," Mr. Foster, and his Unrver- 



ON UNIVERSALIS*!. 133 

salist friends, to the contrary notwithstanding. 
What was the language that John heard from the 
lips of Christ, in Revelations xxii. 11 ? " He that is 
unjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is 
filthy, let him be filthy still ; and he that is right- 
eous, let him be righteous still; and he that is 
holy, let him be holy still." If there is to be 
no difference between the righteous and the wicked, 
why did Christ say there was? In John v. 28, 
Christ says to the Jews : " Marvel not at this ; for 
the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the 
graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth ; 
they that have done good, unto the resurrection 
of life ; and they that have done evil, unto the 
resurrection of damnation." There is, then, to be 
a difference made between the righteous and the 
wicked ; that one class are to be raised up unto 
life, and the other to damnation. 

Mr. Foster quotes the language of Paul, where 
he says, " Where sin abounded, grace did much 
more abound," and thinks that even so, the grace of 
God will overwhelm sin, until it shall be totally 
destroyed. Even so, shall it be, in every penitent 
sinner's heart who seeks the help of God's grace. 
That is what that means, and all that it does 
mean. 

In John iii. 14, occurs this language : " And as 
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even 
so must the son of man be lifted up." In the 
verse following, we see the distinction which Mr. 
Foster failed to observe between the two classes of 



134 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



persons : " That whosoever believeth in him should 
not perish, but have everlasting life." They that 
believe are to be saved. What is the unmistaka- 
ble inference as to those who do not believe ? I 
had hoped that Mr. Foster would answer my ar- 
gument upon this point, on the language of this 
text, especially on the words whosoever believeth ; 
but he ignored it, and I presume will continue to 
do so still. Instead of meeting it, and looking it 
fairly and squarely in the face, as a man ought to 
do, who feels that he is right, he attempts to get 
around it, and throw dust in your eyes by a quib- 
ble over the word " perish." 

He quotes again, from the Apostle Paul : "Christ 
will reign until he has put all enemies under his 
feet." Undoubtedly so; but to say that all his 
enemies shall be put under his feet, does not mean 
that they are to be saints at his right hand. 

He says, further, that the judgment is now going 
on, all the time, and quoted a number of passages 
of scripture, which, as he thought, effectually made 
away with the orthodox view of a day of judgment 
yet to come. I need hardly say to you, that the 
subjects to which those passages relate, have no 
connection whatever with, nor any relation — even 
the most remote — to the question at issue in this 
discussion. But I want to ask him this question : 
If the judgment is now progressing, who is the 
judge? Christ judges no man. In John xii. 47, 
he says : a If any man hear my words, and believe 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 135 

not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the 
world, but to save the world." It is evident 
that he was not judging these unbelievers then. 
But Paul, in Hebrews, ix. 27, tells us when this 
judgment takes place: "And as it is appointed 
unto men once to die, but after this the judg- 
ment." 

Mr. Foster quotes David, as saying, " Thou hast 
delivered my soul from the lowermost hell ;" and 
he seems to design to persude you that to be de- 
livered from the lowermost hell means to have 
been there. Let us see. Says David, in Psalms 
cxvi., " Thou hast delivered my soul from death." 
Had David died when he composed this psalm? 
He says, in Psalms xviii. 5, " The sorrows of hell 
compassed me about; the snares of death pre- 
vented me." David had not been in hell, but he 
had been plunged into such misery as he calls the 
sorrows of hell, and the pains of death. I have 
seen persons in that same fix, many a time, not- 
withstanding the consolations of Universalism. I 
have had them send for me to pray God to deliver 
them from that hell, the existence of which they 
had denied, until the sorrows of hell compassed 
them about, and the snares of death prevented 
them. 

Mr. Foster says I am giving support and encour- 
agement to the deist and the atheist, by advocating 
the doctrine of endless punishment — that the doc- 
trine I preach is the identical argument by which 



136 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

infidels seek to overthrow the divinity of the Bible. 
I pointed you to the misery, and sin and wretched- 
ness, that exist in the world around us, but I did 
not attribute their existence to God. Mr. Foster 
says that God foreordained all that comes to pass, 
and I simply said that if his position was true, the 
conclusion was inevitable that God was not the' 
just, good, holy, kind and benevolent being he is 
represented to us in the Bible. The conclusions 
to which the position of Mr. Foster leads us, are 
therefore precisely the same held by infidels, athe- 
ists or deists. Hence he is giving them aid and 
comfort, and not we, as he would have you believe. 

Again, he wants to know how it is, that if wicked 
men are permitted to prosper and spread them- 
selves like a green-bay tree, in this life, they may 
not be permitted to prosper in the next world also. 
Well, I will tell him one thing that will prevent 
them, and that will be the limited amount of room 
that will be allotted them in the next world. They 
are welcome, so far as I am concerned, to all the 
prosperity compatible with the place, and with the 
weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, that 
shall be in that outer darkness into which they are 
to be thrown, unless they come to God and receive 
pardon through faith in Jesus Christ. 

He says that the expression, " eternal life," or 
" everlasting life," like the phrase, " kingdom of 
God " and some other similar expressions, are used 
in nine cases out of ten, in the New Testament, 



ON UNIVERSAL ISM. 137 

in a limited sense ; for instance : " He that believ- 
eth, hath eternal life " — " the kingdom of God is 
within you," and so on. He says we must take 
these expressions in a limited sense, and not as ap- 
plying to the future. Now we believe, that " he 
that believeth hath eternal life." We all subscribe 
to this scripture doctrine, that he that believes on 
the Lord Jesus Christ, begins to live from that mo- 
ment, and though the body may die, the soul lives 
right on, and is living that eternal life right here 
upon earth, from the moment of his conversion. 
This is precisely what the text says. I cannot see 
the limited sense Mr. Foster speaks about. 

In alluding to the saying of Christ, Luke xiii. 5, 
" Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish," he 
endeavored to make it appear that the word " per- 
ish " there, had some other meaning than that of 
eternal punishment for sin. Christ asked the per- 
sons to whom he addressed that language, whether 
they supposed that the Gallileans, whose blood Pi- 
late had mingled with their sacrifices, or the men 
upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, were sinners 
above all other men ; and answering the question 
himself, says, " I tell you nay ; but unless ye repent 
ye shall all likewise perish." Can you believe that 
he meant by this that unless they repented they 
should lose their lives as these men had done, and 
that that was all he meant by the word perish? 
The idea is preposterous. God has not promised 
to those who repent and serve him, immunity from 



138 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

persecution or any other calamity in this life ; and 
more than that, God would not have sacrificed his 
only begotten and well beloved Son, who was in 
the bosom of the Father before the world was, in 
order to save anything but the soul of man. It 
was in order that the soul of man might not per- 
ish, that God sent his son into the world. 

He said, that unless I can prove that there will 
be days and nights in the future world, my argu- 
ment must fall to the ground. The reference is to 
Rev. xx. 10, where the devil and the beast, and the 
false prophet are said to be tormented forever and 
ever, in the lake of fire both day and night. He 
says, John in speaking of the heavenly Jerusalem, 
says there shall be no night there — consequently, 
there being no night in eternity, the torments pro- 
nounced on the beast and the false prophet cannot 
be in eternity, but in time ; for they are said to be 
tormented, day and night. Now you will notice 
that when John says "there shall be no night there," 
he is speaking of the heavenly world, the new Je- 
rusalem of which Christ is to be the light. Are 
we not told of outer darkness in the other place, as 
well as of day in heaven ? Here then, we have 
day in heaven, and night in hell — both day and 
night in eternity. That is what he wanted me to 
prove. 

In this chapter of Rev. xx. 10, we read, "And the 
devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of 
fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false 



ON UNIVERSALIS*!. 139 

prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night 
forever and ever." This may serve to answer an- 
other query of Mr. Foster, as to who, and what this 
devil is, that is to be cast into the lake of fire and 
tormented forever and ever. It is " The devil that 
deceived them." It was not Peter, nor John, nor 
any body else, but ' f the devil that deceived them.' ? 
Mr. Fosters last argument was, one drawn from 
the resurrection of the dead, and the change that 
the Bible teaches us, shall then take place in us. 
He quoted from 1st Cor. xv. to show what that 
change would be. Paul says, alluding to the body, 
that " It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incor- 
ruption ; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in 
power," and so on. " It is sown a natural body, it 
is raised a spiritual body; as we have borne the im- 
age of the earthy, so shall we also bear the image 
of the heavenly." He says that the object and 
aim of the apostle's argument is to show how 
wonderful and how complete will be the transfor- 
mation ; the change that we shall all undergo at 
the resurrection. I am willing to admit that; and 
then I want him to answer this one plain question,, 
does not all that is here said, relate to the change 
of the body ? Js there a word said in this whole 
passage, about any change taking place in the soul,, 
at the resurrection ? Let him answer that. The 
body, it will be changed ; but the soul, the moral 
being, will remain in the same state precisely, that 
it was in at the moment of its separation from the 
body. 



140 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

It seems to me, now, that in summing up this 
debate, you will have to conclude about as follows : 
Mr. Foster has undertaken to prove the final holi- 
ness and happiness of all mankind. In doing so, 
or in attempting to do so, he has set up God's pa- 
ternal goodness and foreknowledge as a basis; and 
upon this, has assumed, that God should compel 
men to come to heaven at last, and be forever holy 
and happy, no matter how much they may be op- 
posed to it. In this assumption, he ignores entire- 
ly the holiness of God, and his justice ; and asserts 
that man can, by suffering for his sins, enter heaven 
at last, in defiance of right, without repentance or 
faith in Christ ; and hence in absolute independence 
of the whole plan of salvation set forth in the gos- 
pel. He has garbled the scriptures to prove his 
doctrine. He has charged God with being a mon- 
ster of inhumanity and vice. He has both saved 
the devil and destroyed him, by his reasoning ; and 
has assumed another probation, for which he has 
failed to produce scripture proof. He has finally 
cut his own theological throat with the sword of 
the spirit, by quoting a passage of scripture that 
announces the loss of Judas Iscariot. 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 141 

MR. FOSTER'S CLOSING SPEECH. 

Messrs. Moderators: 

Respected Friends: 

With this speech, I shall close my labors upon 
the first proposition. Had Mr. Lozier replied to 
my arguments, throughout this discussion, on Ihe 
same evening they were presented, it would now 
be in my power to answer him more fully, than 
under existing circumstances, I shall be able to do. 
You now see, I have no doubt, if you did not see 
it before, the object he had in view in declining to 
meet the arguments, until two days after they were 
presented. It gives him, in effect, the advantage 
of closing the debate. As it is, however, he has 
delayed answering the most of my arguments until 
to-night, and I have but twenty minutes left in 
which to reply. In view of these facts, I shall 
have to confine myself to a few of the principal 
points contained in his last speech. 

I object to being misrepresented so frequently 
before an audience. I never quoted John xvii. 12, 
as Mr. Lozier affirmed. The passage that I intro- 
duced in support of my proposition, was John vi. 
38, 39, which reads as follows : " For I came down 
from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will 
of him that hath sent me. And this is the Fath- 
er's will, which hath sent me, that of all which he 
hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should 
raise it up again at the last day.'* I told you how 
many were given to Christ by the Father — I 



142 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

proved that all things were given into his hands — 
that all nations and kindreds of the earth, were 
his, by the gift of the Father ; and that of all these, 
there were none to be lost! But Mr. Lozier 
strangely exults, or seems to exult, in finding some- 
body who is going to be damned, and quotes the 
passage in John xvii. 12, concerning Judas, where 
Christ, addressing the Father, says: "Those that 
thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is 
lost but the son of perdition." This is the passage 
he represented me as quoting for the purpose of 
making it appear that Christ said none should be 
finally lost. Examine, even this passage, for a 
moment, and what does it prove against the propo- 
sition ? Who was the son of perdition ? The 
gentleman says truly, it was Judas. But how was 
he lost? Not in the sense contended for by Mr. 
Lozier. He was lost as an apostle, and as a fel- 
low co-worker with the rest of the apostles in the 
gospel ministry. Mark the use of the present tense 
of the verb, in this passage quoted by Mr. Lozier. 
a None of them is lost, but the son of perdition!" 
He does not say " none of them will be lost" — but 
"none of them is lost!" Already lost! There is 
no allusion whatever to Judas' future condition. 
The reference is to the loss of Judas from the 
number of our Lord's disciples. To suppose it to 
refer to his lost condition morally, is a strong argu- 
ment in favor of his final salvation ; for Christ 
" came to seek and to save those that were lost /" 



OX UNIVERSALIS^. 143 

Power sufficient was also delegated to him to 
enable him to accomplish the work. So the in- 
spired phophet says of him : " He shall see of the 
travail of his soul and shall be satisfied." What can 
satisfy the loving heart of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
save the full and complete accomplishment of his 
mission, in the salvation of the world ! 

Mr. Lozier quoted the language of Ezekiel, 
" Because with lies ye have made the heart of the 
righteous sad, whom I have not made sad ; and 
strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he 
should not return from his wicked way, by promis- 
ing him life." I am willing to test our respective 
doctrines right here, by this identical passage of 
scripture. I am ready to submit the question, as 
to which of the two doctrines it is that " strength- 
ens the hands of the wicked ?" and which it is that 
makes " the heart of the righteous sad ?" Does 
my doctrine make them sad? Are they made to 
mourn by the prospect of the final happiness of 
the whole human family ? Ask the mother who 
has been called to part with her first-born ; ask the 
father who has committed to the cold embrace of 
earth the son of his love — whether their hearts 
throb with anguish, when they think of meeting 
with their loved ones amid the undying glories of 
the heavenly world ? Is there a father or mother 
here to-night, whose heart would be made sad by 
telling them of the better land, where they shall 
meet their dear ones to part no more forever, all 



144 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

immortal, all happy — none lost — all saved through 
the merits of the Redeemer, basking in the sun- 
light of that divine love which knows no bounds ? 
O, mock not the holiest affections of the human 
heart, by saying such a doctrine is calculated to 
make men sad! 

What doctrine is it that makes the heart sad ? 
Ask that father who has parted from his boy — who 
perchance, has been called into eternity, in the very 
moment of committing some crime against God — 
who has been hurried off the shores of time with- 
out a moment's warning — ask him, if his heart is 
not made sad by the doctrine which consigns that 
son to an eternity of torment ? See the old man 
standing beside the open grave, his head bowed 
down with hopeless grief, and listen to his despair- 
ing cry — "O, my son, my son! would to God, I 
could hope to meet thee again ! O, that I knew 
thou wert saved!" Ask him, if his heart is not sad, 
as he stands there, his heart wrung with anguish, 
and yearning for the salvation of his son, yet not 
reflecting, nor believing that that God, who is infin- 
itely benevolent, has as much love as he has. The 
stream cannot rise higher than the fountain. The 
deepest and strongest love that animates the hu- 
man heart, is but a feeble emanation from the in- 
finite and all-pervading love of God. How many 
hearts are made sad from a failure to recognize 
this glorious truth ! Go to the lunatic asylums of 
our land, and gaze upon the pitable wrecks of hu- 



ON UN1VERSALISM. 145 

man intellect that have resulted from this doctrine 
of endless torment! How often, alas, has human 
reason been overwhelmed by the contemplation of 
endless woe ! I have had some experience among 
this class, and my heart has often been pained to 
see the miseries man brings upon himself, by refus- 
ing to recognize the boundless love of God toward 
man. 

What doctrine is it, that " strengthens the hands 
of the wicked ?" Let us see. The language that 
the Lord God addressed to Adam in the garden 
of Eden, was : "In the day thou eatest thereof, 
thou shalt surely die." The apostle tells us, " The 
wages of sin is death." The prophet says, "The 
way of the transgressor is hard!" This is Uni- 
versalism. But Mr. Lozier's doctrine is, that all 
these penalties may be escaped, even at the elev- 
enth hour, by repentance. Is not this the doctrine 
that " strengthens the hands of the wicked?" Ac- 
cording to this doctrine, a man may be the worst 
sinner in the world — go on in sin for fifty years, 
without doing a solitary righteous act, or cherish- 
ing one holy purpose in all his life, and yet escape 
punishment altogether, and go to heaven at last! 
We had a case in point of quite recent occurrence — 
that of three men who were hung in Cincinnati, 
for murder, one of whom thanked God that he had 
committed the deed, as it had been the means of 
his salvation! Nor is there a crime upon the dark 
catalogue of transgression, that may not be com- 
10 



146 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

mitted with impunity, upon the hypothesis that 
Mr. Lozier's doctrine is true. Thus much upon 
this point 

I have harldy time enough left to attempt a re- 
capitulation of all my arguments, having been 
compelled to notice so much of Mr. Lozier's last 
speech. I shall only present them in brief outline, 
leaving the audience to refresh their minds with 
the testimonies already presented. 

My first argument was predicated on the paternity 
of God, and the relation that he sustains to the hu- 
man family. I showed you under this head, that 
God was a kind and infinitely loving Father — that 
his paternal love for his intelligent creatures far ex- 
ceeds that of the best earthly parent. I called 
upon Mr. Lozier to show that he would change, or 
love his creatures any less than he does now. He 
has not given us the first testimony to substanti- 
ate such a sentiment ; and the conclusion is there- 
fore inevitable, that God will always be to us the 
same kind and loving Father that he is now ; and 
so long as man has an existence, he will continue 
to be the object of God's paternal love and solici- 
tude. 

My second argument was based upon the love 
of God! I quoted numerous testimonies from the 
Bible, setting forth God's love for frail, sinful hu- 
manity — that it was this love that led him to de- 
vise the plan of salvation, and provide the means 
for the consummation of the same. That he gave 



ON UN1VERSALISM. 147 

his Son an offering for the sins of the whole world! 
J called upon him to show that the love of God 
would change — that the time would ever come 
when he would cease to love his creatures with the 
intense and infinite love that he now has for them. 
He failed to do it. The conclusion therefore, is 
irresistible, that his love will result in the bringing 
of all souls to a perfect obedience to his will, and 
the requirements of his law. 

My third argument was founded upon the fore- 
knowledge of God. This argument like the rest, 
remains unanswered. He has not even attempted 
to set aside the evidence presented, or show that 
our deductions from the premises laid down, were 
not logical and conclusive in favor of the proposi- 
tion. 

The next argument I offered, was founded upon 
the fact that God is the sovereign and rightful 
ruler of the universe; and that as such, he was 
entitled to, and would finally receive the homage 
of all hearts. " The kingdom is the Lord's, and he 
is the governor among the nations!" I quoted line 
after line, and text after text, in support of my ar- 
gument. I referred you to the testimony of the 
Psalmist " All nations whom thou hast made shall 
come and worship before thee, and shall glorify 
thy name!" We showed that the divine gov- 
ernment was framed expressly for the final good of 
all intelligent beings, and that even the penalties of 
the law, were inflicted with reference to the same 
great object. 



148 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



My sixth argument was founded upon the prom- 
ises of God. I gave the testimony in Gen. xxii. 
15-18, where the promise was made unto Abra- 
ham, and afterwards confirmed to Isaac and Jacob, 
that in him and his seed " all nations and families 
should be blessed!" Mr. Lozier sets this aside, 
however, by simply alluding to it as a promise of 
national blessings. But the promise cannot be re- 
stricted in this way — for the blessing is to extend 
to "all the nations, kindreds, and families of the 
earth!" And they are to be blessed by being 
"turned away from their iniquities /" 

Mr. Lozier told you that I believed God would 
compel all men to believe, whether they were willing 
or unwilling. I did not say so. David says, in 
Psalms ex. 3 : " Thy people shall be willing in the 
day of thy power /" Who are God's people? how 
many souls belong to him ? The answer is, all! 
Then all shall be willing to believe and be saved in 
the day of God's power ! They are not going to 
be compelled. When they realize God's love, and 
appreciate his goodness, they will believe without 
compulsion. Christ said to the Saducees who de- 
nied the resurrection, " Ye do err not knowing the 
scriptures, nor the power of God!" It seems a 
great matter with Mr. Lozier, that God should 
compel or force men into heaven, and a small affair 
that he should force them into hell! Better, 
by far, that they should be forced into heaven, than 
into hell ! 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 149 

My argument upon the will of God remains un- 
answered. I gave you the testimony of Paul in 
1st Tim. ii. 1, 6, where it is expressly declared that 
he " will have all men to be saved, and come unto 
the knowledge of the truth." I quoted the lan- 
guage of the Savior, where he says, " I came down 
from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will 
of him that hath sent me ; and this is the Father's will 
which hath sent me, that of all which he hath 
given me, I should lose nothing, but shouM raise it 
up again at the last day." " My meat is to do the 
will of him that hath sent me, and to finish his 
work !" But the brother says, that the work will 
not be finished. I, for one, am willing to take 
Christ at his word, and believe he will finish the 
work of salvation. 

Then, there is my argument on Rom. v. 18-21. 
How did he meet that? He did not meet it 
at all. Perhaps he wanted two days more, to an- 
swer it in, and perhaps if he had two days more, 
he would not answer it even then. That passage 
stands untouched, as an unanswerable testimony 
to the truth, that as wide, and as universal, as the 
dominion of sin has been, even so extensive shall 
be the abounding grace of God, through our Lord 
Jesus Christ. I quoted the language of the great 
Methodist commentator, Dr. Clarke, who says, in 
reference to this passage, that " we find salvation 
here as complete, and as extensive as the contami- 
nation of sin. Death is conquered, the devil con- 



150 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

founded, hell disappointed, and sin totally de- 
stroyed!" Sin is destroyed — sin, the cause of all 
the woes and ills that afflict our race, is totally de- 
stroyed ! The cause being removed, the effect, which 
is misery and unhappiness, will, of course, cease. 
This argument, which we considered one of the 
strongest in support of the proposition, he passed 
over in silence. This, doubtless, was the best way 
to get rid of it. 

My ninth argument was predicated upon the 
kingdom and reign of Christ. I gave you the tes- 
timony of Paul, where he says, " He must reign 
until he has put all enemies under his feet, and 
death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed /" That 
when this shall have been accomplished, he will 
deliver up the kingdom to God the Father, that 
" God may be all in all!" I quoted the language 
of Daniel, and the parallel testimonies in Isaiah 
and Jeremiah, to show that Chris fs kingdom and 
judgment was set up at the beginning of his reign, 
and not at the end ! That he was not to fail nor 
be discouraged, until he had " set up judgment in 
the earth /" I gave you, also, the Savior's own 
testimony, confirming that of the prophets, where 
he says, " ¥ or judgment I am come into the world !" 
"Now is the judgment of this world!" with nu- 
merous other testimonies, all going to show that 
Christ now rules and reigns on earth ; and that he 
shall thus reign, until sin and death are totally de- 
stroyed, and the last human being restored to holi- 



ON UNIVERSALISM. 151 

ness and happiness. But not one of the testi- 
monies introduced in support of this argument, has 
Mr. Lozier noticed. 

My argument upon the resurrection has shared 
the same fate, as his two days 1 rule has prevented 
him from answering it. 

But I must close, as my time is up. I leave my 
arguments with you. Examine them, in the light 
of the testimonies presented, and may God lead 
you into all truth. 



At the close of Mr. Foster's last speech, Mr. 
Lozier arose and said : I want the audience to 
note the fact that Mr. Foster has not attempted 
to make good his charge of plagiarism. He as- 
serted, on the second evening of this debate, that 
he had nearly the whole of my argument, on the 
first night, in this book of Alexander Hall's, besides 
the doggerel verses about Noah and the antedilu- 
vians. I want him to point out the passage that I 
stole from Alexander Hall, and am willing he shall 
have time to do it. Here is the book, and here is 
my speech. I offered them to him before, and re- 
quested him to make good his charge. I want 
him to do it now. 

Mr. Foster replied : Allow me a word or two 
in explanation of what I said. 

Mr. Lozier : I shall not give him time to make 



152 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

any explanations. If he wants to point out the 
stolen passages in my speech, he can do it; but I 
shall not allow him to explain it all away. Let 
him take the book, and prove the truth of his state- 
ment. 

Mr. Foster: I am not represented correctly. 
I did not say Mr. Lozier had stolen his arguments 
from Alexander Hall. I said the verses were not 
original, as some might suppose, but were taken 
from a work of Alexander Hall, which contained 
also the substance of his argument. That is what 
I said. 



FOURTH NIGHT. 



Proposition. Do the Scriptures and reason teach the doctrine of the 
endless punishment of any part of the human family? 



MR. LOZIER'S FIRST SPEECH. 
Messrs. Moderators : 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

In entering upon the discussion of the question 
before us, I shall be bound by the same rules this 
week, which Mr. Foster laid down for the work of 
last week. I shall attempt to deduce the doctrine 
of the eternal punishment of some portion of the 
human race from the scriptures ; and I shall hold 
him to his own rule, and not permit him to prove 
an alibi by other quotations, as he threatened he 
would do on Friday night last. He must follow 
his own rules, and prove that the arguments ad- 
duced are not logical, practical, and conclusive. 

The doctrine of a future state of rewards and 
punishments, is taught in every possible form of lan- 
guage in the scriptures. In starting out, to prove 
the doctrine of the endless duration of punishment 
denounced in holy writ against the wicked, it will 
be well to fix the definition of " punish." Web- 
ster gives it in its primary meaning, as '• to pain 



154 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

to afflict with pain, loss or calamity for a crime or 
fault." The whole question stated is : " Do the 
scriptures and reason teach the doctrine that any 
part of the human race shall suffer endless pain, 
loss, or calamity, for any crime or fault ?" As the 
basis of .argument, I affirm that the scriptures are 
the revealed will and word of God, and they con- 
sist of laws and precepts given for man's direction ; 
and consequently man's free agency follows as an 
inevitable sequence. Moral law can only affect a 
being capable of obeying or disobeying it. If man 
is not a free agent, God has been guilty of the fol- 
ly of giving to a machine or a brute, laws to control 
them, which no sensible man would think of pre- 
scribing to a machine or a brute. He would not 
urge so plain a proposition. Further, all govern- 
ments in their laws recognize man's free agency. 
When a man commits murder you do not so much 
inquire as to the weapon, as to the intent of the 
mind and heart. Did he will to do the murder. 
Upon any other hypothesis the Judge may as ra- 
tionally hang the knife of the assassin, as the man. 
If Mr. Foster denies the doctrine of free agency, 
he denies the only rational basis upon which rests 
the law of God, or the statutes of civilized society. 
More, he denies the only rational basis upon which 
he preaches to his people, or controls his children. 
This much I adduce as to the reasonableness of the 
doctrine. I shall not attempt a large display of 
scripture on this point ; for, as was once before re- 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 155 

marked, the very first command in Genesis, and the 
last injunction in Revelations, respected this ability 
in man to choose for himself. One quotation, how- 
ever, I will give — the entire paragraph embraced in 
Deuteronomy, xxx, commencing with the 15th 
verse, and embracing the balance of the chapter i 
" See, I have set before thee this day life and good,, 
and death and evil ; In that I command thee this 
day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways,, 
and to keep his commandments, and his statutes, 
and his judgments, that thou mayest live and mul- 
tiply; and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in 
the land whither thou goest to possess it. But 
if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not 
hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other 
Gods and serve them ; I denounce unto you this 
day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall 
not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou 
passest over Jordan to go to possess it. I call 
heaven and earth to record this day against you, 
that I have set before you life and death, blessing 
and cursing ; therefore choose life, that both thou 
and thy seed may live. That thou mayest love the 
Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice^ 
and that thou mayest cleave unto him, (for he is 
thy life, and the length of thy days,) that thou 
mayest dwell in the land which the Lord sware un- 
to thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, 
to give them." This cannot be misinterpreted or 
misunderstood. It proves that God gives man the 



156 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

choice between good and evil, and their consequen- 
ces. It proves that God desires that men choose 
the good, and live and enjoy happiness ; but that 
this desire acts in consonance with man's free agen- 
cy, appealing to his will, and urging him to make 
the choice which God pledges shall be best for him. 

The doctrine of free agency being thus estab- 
lished by scripture and reason, and the fact being 
admitted that the Bible is God's word and law to 
man, I shall now proceed directly to my argu- 
ment, which is substantially the same as laid down 
in a former branch of the subject — the goodness, 
holiness, justice, and truth of God. 

Man being a free agent, God manifests his in- 
finite benevolence, toward him, always with re- 
spect to his pardon. Wherefore, the divine good- 
ness is not required to make all mankind actually 
happy, but to establish good laws, and so benevo- 
lently constitute the nature of things, as to give 
opportunity to men to secure to themselves the en- 
joyment of good. The divine goodness, though 
infinite and complete, can do no more for a free 
agent than this, without doing actual violence to 
the other perfections of the divine nature. 

For example : God presents good and evil be- 
fore Mr. Foster, and tells him if he does good, he 
will render the exact service that God of right de- 
mands of his creatures ; but if he does evil, he will 
incur displeasure and punishment. In the face of 
these things, Mr. Foster deliberately does the for- 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 157 

bidden thing. The heinousness of Mr. Foster's 
sin consists not in the amount of actual evil that 
may occur to other human beings, which seems to 
be his view, but the evil is in insulting the divinity 
of God. The results of the sin upon his fellow 
creatures is far from being the measure of his guilt. 
He tramples upon the holiness, justice, and truth 
of his nature. All the attributes of the divine na- 
ture are equal. " O house of Israel, are not my 
ways equal," saith the Lord — Ezekiel xviii. 29. 
God's love cannot exceed his holiness, or justice, 
or truth, for infinity cannot exceed infinity ; and all 
God's attributes are infinite, or else God himself is 
not infinite. 

I shall now proceed to show how, under the 
case, T have supposed, Mr. Foster tramples upon 
the three attributes named. He virtually says : "I 
know that God is a God of infinite holiness, and 
being infinitely holy, his aversion to this evil must 
be infinite : so that he cannot look upon sin 
with the least degree of allowance ; nevertheless, 
I will do this evil right in the face of his holiness,' 
trusting that his infinite goodness will save me 
from the penalty that his infinite truth has de- 
nounced." 

In all reverence, I will inquire, what could God 
do? If his infinite goodness should interpose and 
rescue man from the consequences of offense 
against his infinite holiness, God would, by that 
very act, impeach; his own nature, and proclaim to 



158 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

the universe that he was not " perfect" in all his 
ways, but that his holiness is imperfect and disre 
garded by himself. No intelligent mind will as- 
sume such an absurdity. 

I shall now take up the attribute of justice. If 
God is opposed to sin, he must restrict it. I have 
already shown that with a free agent, this could be 
done by acquainting man with the knowledge of 
evil and its consequences, and leaving him to his 
own volition. No matter how law may be writ- 
ten, justice demands that the violation of it be 
punished in proportion to the aggravated nature 
of the offense. But Mr. Foster does the crime, 
-relying on the goodness of God to save him from 
the penalties which infinite justice demands. Jus- 
tice is as infinite in its strength, and its demands, 
as goodness ; and if a conflict between them were 
possible, neither could overcome the other without 
destroying the very throne of God himself. Who- 
ever, then, sins under the radiance of his goodness 
for salvation, insults God by the implication that 
his virtue is imperfect. 

But it insults God's truth, God tells him the 
consequences of sin, but Mr. Foster commits the 
evil relying on God's goodness. Again is this 
hope frustrated by the same reason as before, ex- 
cept there is a conflict between the divine attri- 
butes. No one would presume to say that God 
can war against himself. Thus it is shown, that 
the heinousness of man's crime consists chiefly in 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 159 

the insults and indignity that any act of sin offers 
to the Almighty, in that the commission of the act 
in the face of the commands and threatenings of 
God, even though it be done under the blasphe- 
mious pretence of reliance on his holiness, implies 
that God is a liar — that he is neither infinite in 
holiness, justice, or truth, while claiming to be in- 
finite in all his attributes. Hence the force of the 
apostle's declaration : " Sin is the transgression of 
the law." 

This view of sin must, of necessity, dispel the 
unscriptural delusion of " little sins." An insult 
offered to the infinite goodness, holiness, justice, 
and truth of God, derives infinite proportions from 
the infinity of the being who is insulted, and must 
receive infinite punishment, unless pardoned through 
Jesus Christ ; for, throughout all eternity, it could 
never appeal to the attributes it has insulted, with- 
out finding that they remain immutable, each in- 
sulted attribute exclaiming in succession, " He 
that is unjust, let him be unjust still ; and he which 
is filthy, let him be filthy still ; and he that is 
righteous, let him be righteous still ; and he that is 
holy, let him be holy still." — Rev. xxii. 11. 

I shall now proceed to consider a matter, upon 
the very threshold of which, we should stop and 
gaze with speechless adoration. I refer to the 
scheme of man's redemption, thanking God that 
such a God as the God of the Bible had the case 
of man's guilt in his hands. We cannot express, 



160 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

for inspiration fails to express, the emotion that 
moved the divine mind, when man of his own vo- 
lition fell. If goodness had then stepped forth 
alone, and asserted its supremacy, and brought 
man involuntarily back to his first innocency, the 
free agency of his nature would have been de- 
stroyed, and man would have been man no more. 
It would have destroyed the respect, not only of 
that man, but of all men, and angels, too, for 
God's holiness, justice and truth ; for when God 
would himself disregard these attributes, he would 
invite all intelligences to follow his example. 

And what if justice had stepped forth alone to 
meet man ? One blow of his keen sword would 
have severed the last thread of hope, and set the 
race adrift upon the boundless, lineless, rayless 
ocean of eternal despair ! So, also, had any other 
attribute whereby man could have been affected, 
been left to deal alone with man. But God was 
not hasty. He waited until " the cool of the day," 
and when he came, he came bearing the glorious 
tidings that the insulted attributes of Deity had 
resolved upon a mutual sacrifice, and had combined 
to evolve a being who should be divine in essence, 
and human in form, and in whom divinity and 
humanity should be so united, that by suffering for 
man, dying for man, rising for man, and interce- 
ding for man, he might open up "a new and tiring 
way," through his own blood, whereby man might 
return to divine favor and eternal happiness. In 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 161' 

Heb. x. 19, 20, we read : " Having therefore, breth- 
ren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood 
of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath 
consecrated for us, through the vail, that is to say, 
his flesh." 

It was in view of this being, that David sang: 
"Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness 
and peace have kissed each other." Paul also re- 
fers to it in Romans liL 19-26, inclusive : " Now 
we know that what things soever the law saith, it 
saith to them who are under the law, that every 
mouth may be stopped ; and all the world may be- 
come guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds 
of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his 
sight : for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 
But now the righteousness of God without the 
law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and 
the prophets ; even the righteousness of God, which 
is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all 
them that believe ; for there is no difference : For 
all have sinned and come short of the glory of 
God ; being justified freely by his grace through 
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : Whom 
God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through 
faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for 
the remission of sins that are past, through the 
forbearance of God ; To declare, I say, at this time 
his righeousness : that he might be just, and the 
justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Jesus 
himself, said, in John iii. 16 : " For God so loved 
11 



162 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but 
have everlasting life." And I now lay down the 
proposition, that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ 
will prevent the eternal punishment of any human 
being, to whom the same is intelligibly presented. 
The terms of salvation, all through the gospel, are 
" faith in Christ." 

But the commission which Christ gave to his 
apostles, teaches the same. Mark xvi. 15, 16 : 
•" And he said unto them, go ye into all the 
world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 
He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; 
but he that believeth not shall be damned" This 
teaches not only the doctrine that the Savior him- 
self held, but what he would have his ministers 
,preach to the world. I am satisfied to rest the 
evening's discussion with these words of the Savior; 
and only ask that Mr. Foster shall bind himself by 
his own rule, and not attempt an alibi with other 
scripture ; and also, as he has said so much about 
"two days," I shall expect an immediate answer 
to my arguments. 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 163 

MB. FOSTER'S FIRST REPLY. 
Gentlemen Moderators: 

Respected Friends: 
As remarked, in our introductory on the first 
proposition, the question of man's final destiny is 
one of the most important and interesting, that 
can possibly engage the attention of the human 
mind. And doubly important does that question 
become, when it involves the possibility of the end- 
less woe and ruin of myriads of created intelli- 
gences ! And in entering upon the discussion of 
our second proposition, I cannot but pity my broth- 
er from the bottom of my heart, that he has en- 
gaged to defend a doctrine fraught with results so 
derogatory to the character of that God, who is 
declared to be "good unto all," and whose "tender 
mercies are over all his works!" Yes, I cannot but 
eommisserate his condition, in the sad and gloomy 
work he has undertaken! Did the sentiment find 
any response in his heart, or did it accord with the 
holy and generous impulses of his nature, there 
might be some reasons presented in extenuation of 
his labor. But no! while the sentiment may re- 
ceive the sanction of the head, and the approba- 
tion of a cold and speculative theology, it benumbs 
and chills the very fountains of sympathy and 
compassion in the soul! Endless punishment in- 
flicted by a God of love, on a part of his own off- 
spring, for the sins and delinquencies of a finite 
existence ! Why, if such doctrine be true, it should ^/* 



164' THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

be indellibly impressed upon every page of the 
Bible, in characters not to be misunderstood. 
Think for a moment, of the consequences of the 
doctrine ! There is not one in this large congre- 
gation, that is not directly and personally interested 
in the solution of the problem now before us! 
For, if true, it invades the sanctuary of the home 
circle, and sunders the holiest chords that ever vi- 
brated in the human heart? Fathers and mothers, 
brothers and sisters, parents and children, are you 
prepared to accept as true, a doctrine that makes 
shipwreck of every holy desire and fond aspiration 
of the soul? That proclaims an endless separa- 
tion from those you love most dear ? And yet this 
is the result of the doctrine my brother has under- 
taken to defend upon the present occasion. No 
marvel is it, that he treads lightly upon the thres- 
hold of its investigation. No wonder that he should 
try to avoid a direct issue upon the real merits of 
the doctrine, and seek to clothe it in a more comely 
apparel I But even this cannot hide its deformi- 
ties — its doom is pronounced, and it must give 
way to those eternal and immutable truths, which 
will endure, when sim, moon, and stars shall have 
all vanished away ! 

As my opponent has the affirmative of this prop- 
osition, I shall expect him to present those testimo- 
nies, if any such are to be found, which record the 
doctrine in the most positive and unmistakable 
language — which have a direct bearing upon the 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 165 

duration of punishment ! not one of which, has he 
presented to-night. 

The question is not, will God punish mankind 
for the transgression of his laws ? This sentiment 
is plainly taught in the scriptures; and the experi- 
ence of six thousand years in the world's history, 
has abundantly confirmed the fact. The question 
to be determined is, what amount, what extent of 
punishment will God's love sanction? Will it 
render the sinner a hopeless, miserable, ruined out* 
cast forever and ever? Will it banish him eter- 
nally from the presence of God, and the compan- 
ionship of angels? Will it place him beyond the 
reach of love ? where its holy ministries can never 
reclaim him ? Can God as a being of love, seal 
the fate of millions of his own offspring in endless 
woe and wretchedness? These are questions of 
great moment to every child of humanity, and that 
must be met in the light of the proposition before 
us. Nor will it do to present testimonies of mere- 
ly an implied character, or doubtful import as to 
their true meaning — testimonies which admit of 
great latitude in their interpretation. Where im- 
mortal interests are at stake, we have a right to 
demand that the testimony shall be of the most 
positive and unequivocal character. Nor will it 
avail Mr. Lozier anything, even though he could 
prove a punishment beyond death, unless he can 
prove that punishment to be of infinite duration. 

The consequences involved in the doctrine of 



166 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

endless punishment, are so horrible and monstrous, 
that it will avail my opponent but little, to array a 
multiplicity of scriptural passages, unless he can 
show that each one presented, teaches clearly the 
sentiment of the proposition. Fine spun arguments 
and metaphysical disquisitions, will not suffice 
upon a subject thus weighty and momentous in its 
character. We want the most incontrovertible ev- 
idence, the most positive assurance, that God's love 
in the coming ages of the future, is to be with- 
drawn from the sinner, and that he is to be con- 
signed to that region of torment, where age will 
roll on after age, only to perpetuate his round of 
misery and despair ! 

I am willing to admit to a certain extent, the 
moral agency of man ; but I am not prepared to 
accept the conclusion, that his final destiny is made 
in the least contingent upon that agency. So far 
as his career upon the stage of time is concerned, 
his agency controls directly his happiness or mis- 
ery. As a finite being, his acts involve finite re- 
sults alone — nor can he perform an act that will 
involve infinite results ! And it is mere assumption, 
to contend that the final destiny of man is made 
contingent upon the deeds of this life. This is 
the very point to be proven. The Bible does not 
warrant such a sentiment, nor does it receive the 
sanction of reason. And to assert that finite be- 
ings can, by the deeds of a few years of transitory 
existence, peril their immortal interests, is to assert 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 167 

a sentiment wholly at variance with the plainest 
teachings of reason and revelation. Again, the 
position that a finite creature can, by his evil deeds, 
involve himself in, or merit an infinite curse, is in 
effect an admission that he can merit infinite hap- 
piness as the reward of his good deeds ! And as 
we are to be rewarded "according to our deed*, 
whether good or bad" the destiny of an individual 
is involved in infinite consequences, which are in 
direct conflict with each other ! It likewise predi- 
cates man's final salvation upon works, and not 
upon grace ! A plain contradiction of the testi- 
mony of the apostle, in Eph. ii. 8, " By grace are 
ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, 
it is the gift of God /" 

True, the Bible addresses man as a moral agent. 
In the administration of his government, God 
has enacted certain laws for the benefit of his 
children. Obedience to those laws is productive 
of happiness, while disobedience results in misery 
and wretchedness. But in neither case, is the re- 
ward endless happiness or eternal misery ! Man's 
acts involve finite consequences alone ! His pres- 
ent happiness, peace, and enjoyment are suspended 
upon his agency, as controlled by surrounding cir- 
cumstances. If he would be happy, he must be 
virtuous ; while an opposite course of conduct will 
invariably produce opposite results ! Further than 
this, his agency cannot go. The issues of death 
have not been committed to his hands. He has 



168 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

no power to peril those interests that are to run 
parallel with eternity. Says the Psalmist, " He 
that is our God, is the God of salvation, and unto 
God the Lord, belongeth the issues from death!" 
" Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; 
and the spirit to the God who gave it /" 

Mr. Lozier has quoted Deuteronomy xxx. 15-20, 
where life and death are spoken of in contrast: 
u See I have set before thee this day life and good, 
and death and evil; In that I command thee this 
day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways? 
and to keep his commandments and his statutes, 
and his judgments, that thou mayest live and mul- 
tiply : and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the 
land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine 
heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but 
shall be drawn away, and worship other Gods, and 
serve them ; I denounce unto you this day, that ye 
shall utterly perish, and that ye shall not prolong 
your days upon the land, whither thou passest over 
Jordan, to go to possess it. I call heaven and earth 
to record this day against you, that I have set before 
you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore 
choose life that both thou and thy seed may live : 
That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and 
that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou 
mayest cleave unto him, (for he is thy life, and the 
length of thy days,) that thou mayest dwell in the 
land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, to 
Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them." 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 169 

Why did he not turn back to the xxviii. chapter, 

of the same book, where the doctrine of rewards 

and punishments under the old dispensation is 

more fully set forth. Where the same blessings 

and curses for obedience and disobedience are 

more clearly specified. Verses 1-6: "And it shall 

come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto 

the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and do 

all his commandments which I command thee this 

day : that the Lord thy God will set thee on high 

above all the nations of the earth : And all these 

blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if 

thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy 

God. Blessed shalt thou be in the city! and blessed 

shalt thou be in the field! Blessed shall be the 

fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and 

the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, 

and the flocks of thy sheep. Blessed shalt be thy 

basket and thy store. Blessed shalt thou be when 

thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when 

thou goest out." So much for the blessings. Now 

for the curses. Verses 15-19 : " But it shall come 

to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of 

the Lord thy God, to observe to all his command. 

ments, and his statutes, which I command thee this 

day ; that all these curses shall come upon thee 

and overtake thee : Cursed shalt thou be in the city ! 

and cursed shalt thou be in the field! Cursed shall 

be thy basket and thy store. Cursed shall be the 

fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the in- 



170 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

crease of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. 
Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and 
cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out!" The 
blessing and cursing in regard to obedience and 
disobedience are both placed in the earth ! There 
are no eternal curses threatened in the whole chap- 
ter. So in chapter xxx., the life and death, are the 
same as that spoken of in Genesis, where it is said 
u In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely 
die /*' This was neither a physical or eternal death, 
but a moral or spiritual death — as our first parents 
lived a long time subsequent to the day of trans- 
gression. It was the same death recorded in Deut- 
eronomy, the opposite of which is moral or spirit- 
ual life. Said Jesus in John v. 24, " He that hear- 
eth my word, and believeth on him that hath sent 
me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come unto 
condemnation ; but is passed from death unto life /" 
Here we have the death and life, both spoken of as 
confined to the present state. Again, says Paul in 
Eph. ii. 1 : "And you hath he quickened, (or made 
alive,) who were dead in tresspasses and in sins!" 
In Romans vi. 23, we read : ta For the wages of 
sin is death ! but the gift of God is eternal life /" 
Many other testimonies might be quoted, but let 
these suffice. 

In fact, the Old Testament no where teaches 
the doctrine of endless punishment. This fact is 
conceded by the most eminent commentators of 
which we have any knowledge. Among them are 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 171 

Whitby, Warburton, Payley, Campbell, Mack night, 
Pearce, and a host of others, whose names it is not 
necessary that I should mention. Bishop War- 
burton says: " In the Jewish republic, both rewards 
and punishments promised by heaven, were tem- 
poral. * * * In no place in the Mosaic Insti- 
tutes, is there the least intelligible hint of the 
rewards and punishments of another life /" 

Universal experience fully corroborates the tes- 
timony of revelation in regard to rewards and pun- 
ishments — that "there is a God who judgeth in the 
earth /" That "the righteous are recompensed in the 
earth, much more the wicked and the sinner!" 
My friends, bring the matter home to your own 
hearts, and ask yourselves the question, whether 
you have not been fully rewarded for all the good 
you have done in the world ? You never did a 
good act in your lives, that you did not feel that 
you were made better by the deed of love. And 
so, on the other hand, you were never guilty of a 
mean act or crime, that you were not lowered in 
your own estimation, as well as that of your fellow 
man. While the man of honesty and virtue, 
reaps an abundant reward in well doing, the vicious 
and sinful person finds, fully verified in his case> 
the truth of heaven, that "the way of the transgres- 
sor is hard" — that "there is no peace to the wicked!" 
Go where he will, he finds no resting place, where 
he can shield himself from the goadings of a guilty 
conscience. The eye of omniscience is ever upon. 



172 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

him, and his curse constantly following him, " A 
fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the 
earth .'" 

Mr. Lozier has quoted Rom. iiL 19-26: "Now 
we know that what things soever the law saith, it 
saith to them who are under the law : that every 
mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be- 
come guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of 
the law, there shall no flesh be justfied in his sight : 
for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now 
the righteousness of God without the law is mani- 
fested, being witnessed by the law and the 
prophets ; even the righteousness of God, which is 
by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all 
them that believe ; for there is no difference : For 
all have sinned, and come short of the glory of 
God ; being justified freely by his grace, through 
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : Whom 
God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through 
faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for 
the remission of sins that are past, through the for- 
bearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time 
his righteousness : that he might be just, and the 
justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Why 
did he not go a little farther, and give us the fifth, 
chapter, where the apostle makes the argument 
more full and complete, in regard to the sinfulness 
of man, and the extent of God's grace ! Where he 
shows, that as extensive as are the effects of sin 
and death, even so extensive will be the reign of 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 173 

grace and righteousness ! Turn, also, to Rom. xi. 
25, where tbe apostle sums up the whole matter : 
" For I would not, brethren, that ye should be igno- 
rant of this mystery, (lest ye should be wise in your 
own conceits) that blindness in part has happened 
unto Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be 
come in. And so all Israel shall be saved!" 
Verse 32: " For God hath concluded them all in 
unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all!" 
Verse 36 : " For of him, and through him, and to 
him are all things! to whom be glory, forever. 
Amen," Here is the grand consummation ! God 
concluded all in unbelief, not that he might damn 
them all, but that he might have mercy upon all! 
Well does the apostle exclaim : " O the depth of 
the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of 
God ! how unsearchable are his judgments, and 
his ways past finding out." 

Mr. Lozier then introduced Mark xvi. 15, 16 : 
" And he said unto them, go ye into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to every creature. He that 
believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he 
that believeth not, shall be damned," As Mr. 
Lozier simply quoted the passage, without attempt- 
ing any argument upon it, we shall give it only 
a passing notice, at this time, reminding him that 
the phrase " he that believeth not," includes the 
whole heathen world, as well as all infants and 
idiots ! And thus, as with a besom of destruction, 
are consigned to endless- torments these several 



174 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

classes of mankind, who have never heard the gos- 
pel, and are not capable of exercising faith in its 
life giving precepts. If life is a state of probation — 
if the change necessary to our future salvation, can 
only be effected here ; if a belief in the gospel, and 
an obedience to its requirements, are the requisites 
of salvation beyond the grave, then is there no 
hope for the entire heathen world! They die sin- 
ners, and as there is no change after death, accord- 
ing to Mr. Lozier's theory, they must remain sin- 
ners eternally. God has no special laws for any 
part of his intelligent creation. The principles of 
his government are world wide in their applica- 
tion, and universal in their extent and dominion. 
The command is, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
God, with all thy heart, mind, might and strength, 
and thy neighbor as thyself!" On every being 
this law is binding, and in order to final salvation, it 
must be fulfilled ! It is equally applicable to the 
heathen, as well as the christian. So that the 
whole heathen world, as well as all infants and 
idiots, who are not recognized as subjects of faith, 
are to be eternally lost. It will not do to say that 
God has provided some other way for the salvation 
of these classes. There is but one way of salvation. 
Christ says, " I am the way, and the truth, and the 
life; no man cometh to the Father but by me!'' 
If you and I, are to be saved in this way, so must 
the whole heathen world, as well as all other be- 
ings created in the image of God ! Let Mr. Lozier 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 175 

notice these objections, and remove them if he can. 
Let him show how the heathen world are to be 
saved, and I will show you how all mankind will 
be saved upon the same ground. 

I shall now proceed to introduce a negative ar- 
gument against the proposition, founded on the 
justice of God. "We shall show that the divine 
justice is opposed to the endless punishment of a 
single soul whom God has created. That God is 
just, the following testimonies fully prove : Deut. 
xxxii. 4: " A God of truth and without iniquity, 
just and right is he." Isaiah xiv. 21 : "A just 
God, and a Savior /" Rev. xv. 3 : " Just and true 
are thy ways, thou king of saints." Job iv. 17 : 
" Shall mortal man be more just than God ?" 
Psalms lxxxix. 14 : "Justice and judgment are the 
habitation of thy throne." 

God's justice is infinitely perfect ; and hence all 
its demands must be accomplished. The simple 
idea of justice, is right. It claims that whatever is 
wrong in the moral world, shall be righted ; that 
all opposing influences to man's happiness shall be 
destroyed. Mr. Lozier will, no doubt, advance 
the old theory, that justice demands the endless 
punishment of the sinner ; but such an idea is 
purely vindictive, and strips punishment of its de- 
sign to reform. The work of justice is to correct 
evil, to see that every violation of the principle of 
right is rectified. God's punishments are all in- 
flicted with reference to the demands of justice — 



176 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

and no more punishment will be meted out to an 
individual, that what may be necessary to secure 
the end of justice, which is the good of the sinner. 
The law of God is founded upon the principle of 
justice ; and there is no penalty annexed to it, that 
will contravene its benevolent design, which is 
the happiness of all intelligent creatures! In 
Psalms xix. 7, we read : " The law of the Lord is 
'perfect, converting the soulV Hence all the oper- 
ations of this law, must be characterized by its own 
perfection ! 

Man being the emanation of a higher power, 
the effect of a producing cause, justice demands 
that he shall not be made the loser by his existence. 
Nor will it avail my brother anything, to say that 
God did not compel him to sin and suffer — that it 
was a matter of his own choice. Talk as we may, 
the circumstances of his being, are controlled by a 
superior power. God could have given him an agen- 
cy doubtless, that would have periled his immortal 
interests ; or he could have rendered his final hap- 
piness secure! Justice would forever forbid the 
act of creation, on the hypothesis that his final 
destiny is imperilled. A solemn and eternal pro- 
test in the name of justice, is entered against such 
an act of cruelty. Justice throws its protecting 
arms around the sinner and shields him from all 
unnecessary punishment. Creating man as he did, 
of his own free will and accord — making him just 
such a being as his wisdom and goodness dictated, 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 177 

justice demands that he shall not be placed in a 
situation which the Creator foresees will result in 
his irremedial wretchedness ! Justice forbids such 
a result as attending the government of God. Nor 
is there any conflict between the justice of God, 
and his love and mercy. The one requires no more 
than is sanctioned by the other. There is a per- 
fect harmony between the attributes of justice and 
mercy ! Says David, in Psalms lxii. 12, "Unto thee, 
O Lord, belongeth mercy ! for thou renderest to 
every man according to his works ! " The work of 
mercy may be seen even in God's judgments and 
punishments. They both aim at the reformation 
of the offender, and would bring him to holiness 
and happiness. It is no evidence that God does 
not love the sinner, because he punishes him. On 
the contrary, it is a positive proof of God's love. 
He can punish in accordance with the demands of 
justice, and yet forgive him. Says the prophet, 
Isaiah xi. 1, 2: "Comfort ye, comfort ye my peo- 
ple, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to 
Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is 
accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for 
she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all 
her sins /" Here pardon and punishment are spo- 
ken of as being in perfect harmony with each oth- 
er. Again, in Psalms xcix. 8, we read, " Thou 
wast a God that forgavest them, though thou 
tookest vengeance of their inventions /" 

I call upon Mr. Lozier to meet this argument 
12 



178 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

upon the justice of God ; for I regard it as an invin- 
cible proof against the doctrine of endless torment ! 
My second negative argument against the prop- 
osition, is, that the doctrine of endless punishment 
destroys all certainty in the administration of re- 
wards and punishments. No truth is more plainly 
taught in the Bible, than that God will reward 
every man according to his works ! In Rom. ii. (5, 
we read '" Who will render to every man, accord' 
ing to his deeds /" Here the language is emphatic, 
and admits of no limitation or false interpretation.- 
[t proclaims the doctrine of certainty, in regard to 
rewards and punishments. And it is the certainty, 
as I have intimated before, and not the severity of 
punishment, that gives it efficacy and power to re- 
form.. Again, we read in Col. iii. 25: "But he 
that doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong that 
he hath done ; and there is no respect of persons /" 
The same sentiment is taught in 2d Cor. v. 10, 
" For we must all appear before the judgment seat 
of Christ ; that every one may receive the things 
done in his body, according to that he hath done, 
whether it be good or bad! " In Pro v. xi. 21, we 
find a testimony equally strong, " Though hand 
join in hand the wicked shall not be unpunished'." 
From these testimonies it will be seen, that there 
is a proportion between the crime and the penalty. 
That we are to be rewarded according to our works ! 
which is not the case upon the hypothesis that my 
brother's doctrine is true. Here is an individual 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 179 

in your community, for instance, whom you have all 
known as an honest, upright, and pious man. He 
has been noted for his deeds of goodness and love. 
He has alleviated the many woes of suffering hu- 
manity, whenever the opportunity offered. He has 
obeyed as near as it is possible for a finite creature 
to do, all the requirements of God's law. Thus he 
lives for half a century. He may perform during 
that period nought but good deeds and benevolent 
acts ; and yet one step aside from the path of duty, 
just before life's close, is all that is necessary to 
consign him to endless punishment ! If this be 
true, where, I ask, does he get his reward for his 
good deeds ? The deeds of love, of half a century ?" 
For mark you, he is to receive " according to that 
he hath done, whether good or bad /" So that you 
see he gets no reward at all ! And thus the cer- 
tainty of a reward for well doing is destroyed. 

Another individual pursues an opposite course 
of life. He is dishonest, vile, and profligate. He 
is guilty of almost every crime upon the catalogue 
of transgression. He lives a long life of sin and 
iniquity; but near its close he repents, and em- 
braces Mr. Lozier's doctrine. In other words, he is 
converted, in the popular acceptation of the term, 
and becomes religious. He dies, and goes to 
heaven, there to enjoy an eternity of bliss ! But 
where, I ask, does he get his punishment for the 
evil deeds of his former life ? For the crimes of 
half a century ! He gets no punishment at all !. 



180 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

So that it is not true, in his case, that he is 
rewarded in the future world according to his 
works! The case may be presented, even in a 
stronger light. A man may live in iniquity all his 
days — may murder his hundreds of victims, and 
yet between the time of his sentence, and the exe- 
cution, he may repent and escape all the punish- 
ment which his crimes so justly deserve. 

But again — if the character at death fixes the 
destiny of each and every individual, there can be 
no such thing as a reward according to works, in 
the future world ! 

So far as hell is concerned, I will simply say, 
that I believe in all the hell of which the Bible 
speaks, but am not prepared to accept the view of 
it given by Mr. Lozier. David was in hell, and 
yet was delivered from it. No where do we read 
of an endless hell, or of a hell beyond this life ! 
We believe, also, in punishment ; that sin will be 
surely punished ; that there is no possible avenue 
of escape for the sinner; that if he transgresses 
God's law, he will suffer the penalty, and that, in 
the very day of transgression. That " God will by 
no means clear the guilty !" That the " way of the 
transgressor is hard!" That the "wicked are like 
the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters 
cast up mire and dirt." The "wages of sin is 
death!" Thus the Bible speaks in regard to sin 
and its penalty, and we believe every word it says. 
Christ came to save men from sin — not from pun- 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 181 

ishment! And when the certainty of punish- 
ment is fully believed and taught, then, and not 
till then, may we hope to see the tide of iniquity 
rolled back, and man saved from its power and 
influence. 



\ 



FIFTH NIGHT 



MR. LOZIER'S SECOND SPEECH. 

Messrs. Moderators : 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 
Whatever might have been the surprise of the 
audience, or the mortification of Mr. Foster's 
friends, it was no matter of astonishment to me, 
that Mr. Foster pursued the course that he did, on 
last evening. Doubtless some did expect that 
Mr. Foster, having laid down the rule that " he 
should expect his opponent to prove that his argu- 
ments, deduced from the text given, are not sound, 
practical, and conclusive," he would certainly fol- 
low his own rule, for shame, if not for consistency's 
sake. But he was consistent to his own character, 
as well as with the threat of last Friday evening, 
that he would " attempt an alibi" and dodge the 
argument. He was wily and wise, but not quite 
so wise as Solomon, who said : " He that diggeth 
a pit shall fall therein, and he that rolleth a stone, 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 183 

it shall return upon him." He is in the "pit," 
with the "stone" on the top of him, and there the 
verdict of intelligent hearers and readers will leave 
him. But what did he do with the argument? 
He wanted no "two days" to answer that. He 
opened his old book of thumbed and dingy manu- 
script, containing arguments upon which he 'has 
been whipped at Knightstown, and Shelbyville, 
and Vevay, and probably a dozen other places in 
Indiana, during the last twenty »years, and he 
launches them forth. We must be charitable for 
accidents, however; for it is quite evident, from the 
striking similarity between this argument and-his 
first argument last week, that he either opened his 
book in the wrong place, or else, like "the blind 
horse in a bark mill," he is grinding away upon the 
old question, unconscious of the lapse of time 
and the change of circumstances. Perhaps he is 
not satisfied with the result of last week's effort, 
and thinks that by skillful angling he may yet be 
able t'o fish up his friend Judas from the " perdi- 
tion" in which he unfortunately let him drop. 

After reading from those old manuscripts, Mr. 
Foster did deign to allude to the argument on 
moral agency, and said that he was willing to ad- 
mit it, to a " certain extent." There was hope for 
Mr. Foster, if he would only stand still long enough, 
in any one place, to be counted on either side of 
the question. Last week, according to Mr. Fos- 
ter, God compelled every act of man ; this week, 



184 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

man is free to a "certain extent." But further 
along, in the argument, Mr. Foster trips into his 
fatalism again, in saying: " It is vain to say that 
man need not fall — that God has given him power 
to stand, if he will but use the means." 

Man is a moral agent, to a certain extent, yet 
God foresaw, and consequently foreordained all 
his acts and their consequences! Where does 
Mr. Foster's certain extent come in, if all mens' 
acts and all their results are foreordained ? But 
Mr. Foster said that he was not at all prepared to 
say that man's final destiny is made, in the least, 
dependent upon his agency. He whose doctrine 
Mr. Foster claimed to be preaching, accepted such 
a conclusion, for he predicated everlasting life upon 
man's belief, and death on his disbelief. John iii. 
36 : "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting 
life : and he that believeth not the Son, shall not 
see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him." 
In this passage, " eternal life," and " abideth in 
death," are in antithesis, and the same doctrine ap- 
pertains to one as to the other. This was the doc- 
trine Christ taught, and what he told his disciples 
to teach, and Mr. Foster, who claims to be a 
preacher of the gospel, par excellence, should preach 
that " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be 
saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." 
If he preached that doctrine to his people, they 
would say he had either gone crazy or been con- 
verted. His doctrine is, that he that " believeth 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 185 

not" shall be saved anyhow. In reply to Mr. Fos- 
ter's statement, that those who " believeth not" in- 
cluded heathens, insane, and idiots, for they could 
not believe in Christ, and hence must be damned, 
I am not entirely sure, but under the last item, 
God would save anybody who could give such an 
interpretation to the passage, especially in the face 
of Rom. x. 14 : " How shall they believe in whom 
they have not heard," and again, in chapter xvii., 
" Faith comes by hearing." 

In reply to what Mr. Foster said on Deuteron- 
omy, xxx. 15-20, I said he was talking of man's 
moral agency, and not as Mr. Foster would make 
him, of the question of punishment. He dodged 
the argument, and wanted to know why the 28th 
chapter was not quoted. One reason was, that all 
I wanted to prove was conclusively shown in the 
20th. In this way were all the arguments met. I 
am glad that the " respected auditors " have more 
intelligence than Mr. Foster's sophisms implies. 
But to the direct argument. Mr. Foster says the 
Old Testament neither teaches nor hints at the 
doctrine of future punishment, and quoted Pearce, 
Macknight, and other commentators. Here he 
made one of his strong points, and doubtless some 
in the audience thought he had a weighty argu- 
ment in the " silence " of the Old Testament scrip- 
tures. Pearce and Macknight admit this silence, 
the same as Mr. Foster makes Adam Clarke ad- 
mit Universalism, by garbling words and distort- 
ing their meaning. 



J 86 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

Ail standard commentators and Biblologists, 
agree that, not until one hundred and twenty-nine 
years after Nehemiah wrote his prophecy, which, 
chronologically speaking, was the last book of the 
Old Testament — not until then, and more than a 
century after the Old Testament was written, did 
any person arise in the church of God, who for 
one moment pretended to call in question the doc- 
trine of future rewards and punishments. The 
whole Jewish nation believed it, and certainly Mr. 
Foster cannot be ignorant of that fact Then it 
was that Xadoc or Sadoc, originated the doctrine 
that there is no reward or punishment, or even ex- 
istence in a future State. This Sadoc was the 
founder of the sect that bore his name, the Sad- 
.ducees, who were the first people in the world 
claiming to be worshippers of God, who taught 
the doctrine that Mr. Foster teaches concerning 
punishment. Hence it is that the Old Testament 
writers do not dwell much upon this question. 
What everybody believed, needed but little argu- 
ment But I contend that the old scriptures do 
teach the doctrine of eternal punishment, and 
would refer you to Isaiah, where that prophet pre- 
sents a vision of the glory of the new Jerusalem, 
in the last five verses of his prophecy. This is the 
last verse : "And they shall go forth and look upon 
the carcasses of the men that have transgressed 
against me, for their worm shall not die, neither 
/shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 187 

abhorring to all flesh." Mr. Foster will give his in- 
terpretation of the expression, " where the worm 
dieth not." Hear how Christ interprets it in Mark 
ix. 43-48 : "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: 
it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than 
having two hands to go into hell, into the fire 
that shall never be quenched. Where their worm 
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And 
if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; it is better for 
thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to 
be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be 
quenched. Where their worm dieth not, and the 
fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, 
pluck it out : it is better for thee to enter into the 
kingdom of God with one eye, than having two 
eyes to be cast into hell fire. Where their worm 
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Isaiah's 
teaching does not stand alone. In the last chap- 
ter of Daniel, and first three verses, the prophet 
gives his vision of the resurrection, and the subse- 
quent everlasting punishment of the wicked. What 
doctrine is this Daniel is teaching? He is talking 
about the coming forth of those " that sleep in the 
dust of the earth " — that is, the resurrection. Now, 
says Daniel, they " shall come forth, some to ever- 
lasting life, some to shame and everlasting con- 
tempt." But Mr. Foster says the Old Testament 
don't teach any such doctrine as endless punish- 
ment. The " shame and contempt," and " ever- 
lasting life" are all the same thing; for if all do not 



188 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

enjoy everlasting life, then whoever endures "ever- 
lasting shame and ccntemp" is punished, for the 
loss of everlasting life, and the enduring of ever- 
lasting shame and contempt is punishment. 

I want the audience to notice how Mr. Foster 
will answer this; for he must take hold of it, and 
do something with it. There are other Old Testa- 
ment scriptures, as for instance, its last book — Mal- 
achi — is full of it ; but sufficient has been quoted. 

To turn to the New Testament. When Jesus 
came into the world, the Sadducees had grown to 
be a very influential sect, and if their " no punish- 
ment" doctrine was correct, Christ would not have 
hesitated to confirm it. But Jesus warned his dis- 
ciples to beware of the doctrines of the Sadducees. 
Matthew xvi. 12. But to the testimony of Christ. 
In Matthew x. 28, after Christ had given instruc- 
tions to his apostles, and was sending them out 
into the world, he warned them of the perils and 
persecutions that were before them — "but," said 
he, "fear not them which kill the body, but are 
not able to kill the soul, but rather fear him which 
is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 
Now, what does Jesus teach here ? First, that the 
body may be killed and the soul live on ; second, 
that the body and soul may both be destroyed in 
hell; and thirdly, it teaches that hell is a place in 
which souls and bodies may be destroyed. As Mr. 
Foster has repeatedly said he believed in hell, and 
in a good deal of hell, I would like to know what 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



189 



kind of hell it is. I believe in the kind referred to 
above. 

But in Matt, xiii., in which are eight distinct 
parables, there is a full treatise upon the whole 
question. I will read the first of these parables ; 
that of the sower. Verses 24-29 : " Another par- 
able put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom 
of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good 
seed in his field : But while men slept, his enemy- 
came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went 
his way. But when the blade was sprung up, 
and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares 
also. So the servants of the householder came 
and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good 
seed in the field ? from whence then hath it tares ? 
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. 
The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that 
we go and gather them up ? But he said, Nay ; 
lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also 
the wheat with them. Let them both grow to- 
gether until the harvest ; and in the time of the 
harvest, I will say to the reapers, Gather ye to- 
gether first the tares, and bind them in bundles to 
burn them : but gather the wheat unto my barn." 

When Jesus uttered this parable, there seemed 
to be a kind of mystery hanging about it, that the 
disciples could not understand. It seemed to ring 
in their ears. So after Jesus had sent the multi- 
tudes away, they came to him privately and said, 
Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the 



190 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

field." Now mark, the language that follows is 
not the parable ; but it is Christ's commentary upon 
his own parable. Said he : " He that soweth the 
good seed is the Son of Man ; the field is the 
world ; the good" seed are the children of the king- 
dom, but the tares are the children of the wicked 
one ; the enemy that sowed them is the devil ; the 
harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are 
the angels." That is Christ's commentary, and it 
is clear as to who the people are. Now what is to 
be done with them ? " As therefore the tares are 
gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the 
end of the world. The Son of man shall send 
forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his 
kingdom all things that offend, and them which 
do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of 
fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun 
in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears 
to hear, let him hear." 

This is Christ's commentary; we shall hear Mr. 
Foster's after a while. But he must be careful 
that he does not give Christ the lie, or he may 
strike him dumb, and thus silence his blasphemy. 

We shall now take up Christ's doctrine upon 
the judgment and its results, recorded in Matt. xxv. 
31-46 : " When the Son of man shall come in his 
glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall 
he sit upon the throne of his glory : And before 
him shall be gathered all nations : and he shall sep- 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 191 

arate them one from another, as a shepherd 
divideth his sheep from the goats : And he shall 
set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on 
the left. Then shall the King say unto them on* 
his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father,, 
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the 
foundation of the world: For I was an hungered* 
and ye gave me meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave 
me drink: 1 was a stranger, and ye took me in: 
Naked, and ye clothed me : I was sick, and ye 
visited me : I was in prison, and ye came unto 
me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, 
Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed 
thee ? or thirsty, and gave thee drink ? When saw 
we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked 7 
and clothed thee ? Or when saw we thee sick, or 
in prison, and came unto thee? And the King 
shall answer and say unto them, Verily, I say unto> 
you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the 
least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto 
me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left 
hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting 
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I 
was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was 
thirsty, and ye gave me no drink : I was a stranger, 
and ye took me not in : naked, and ye clothed me 
not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, 
when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a 
stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did 



192 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

not minister unto thee ? Then shall he answer 
them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as 
ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it 
not to me. And these shall go away into everlast- 
ing punishment : but the righteous into life eternal." 
The time that Christ alludes to here, is when he 
shall come in his glory. He was here in his hu- 
miliation then ; but he will come in his glory, 
accompanied by his "holy angels," and seated upon 
his throne, just as John saw him, in Revelation. 
"And before him shall be gathered all nations." 
Mr. Foster will probably tell you this is something 
about the Jews, and Jesusalem, etc. "All nations" 
are to be there. Next, a separation is to be made 
of these people, " as a shepherd divideth his sheep 
from his goats," and the sheep are to be placed on 
the right hand, and the goats on the left. Then 
each receives the sentence — first, the sheep. These 
shall inherit the kingdom prepared for them from 
the foundation of the world. Then the goats — 
his enemies, who did not minister to, or sympathize 
with him — are sentenced : " Depart from me, ye 
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil 
and his angels." "These shall go away into ever- 
lasting punishment; but the righteous into life 
eternal" Here we have the delaration of Jesus 
Christ, that after the day of judgment, some por- 
tion of the human family shall go away into ever- 
lasting punishment. 

Mr. Foster should be dumb, before these words of 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 193 

Jesus; but he will not. He will ring the changes 
upon the word "everlasting," and tell us that it 
does not mean what we understand by the word ; 
that it is used in "everlasting hills;" and that God 
promised Canaan to the Jews for an "everlasting 
inheritance," when, in fact, they lost it long 
ages ago ; and he will say, if that everlasting had 
an end, the other one may have one also. The 
rule for the use of the words " everlasting," and 
" eternal," is that they always signify the longest 
time possible to the subject to which they apply. 
For instance, " everlasting hills" means the longest 
time possible to the hills ; and when we say 
" eternal home of the soul," we mean the longest 
time possible for the soul. This is one of the 
plainest and most obvious rules in philology, and 
will not be controverted. If the word everlasting 
is applied to the destiny of resurrected and immor- 
tal beings, then it means the longest possible time 
for immortal beings, and Mr. Foster is estopped 
from evasion. But the phrases " eternal life," and 
"everlasting punishment," are in antithesis, and 
the punishment is of as long duration to the 
wicked, as life is to the righteous. This was 
Christ's last discourse, as recorded by Matthew, 
and knowing the doctrines of the Sadducees, by 
whom he was surrounded, he was determined not 
to be misunderstood, except by those who wilfully 
and wickedly "wrest the scriptures unto their own 
destruction." I will conclude the argument on 
13 



194 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

this point, by asking Mr. Foster the question, if 
he had wanted to state the doctrine of final pun- 
ishment, and had been in Christ's stead, what 
stronger and clearer language could he have 
used?" 

We shall now notice the case of Judas Iscariot, 
the particulars of which are in Matthew xxvi. 
21-25. " And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say 
unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And 
they were exceedingly sorrowful, and began every 
one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I ? And 
he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand 
with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. 
The Son of man goeth, as it is written of him ; 
but wo unto that man by whom the Son of man 
is betrayed ! it had been good for that man if he 
had not been born." 

Mr. Foster has repeatedly said God could not 
have created any being without intending his 
eternal happiness, and that no matter how long 
the punishment — if it be a million ages — it must 
end at last. If this is correct, God must have 
foreseen that the eternal happiness of Judas in the 
end must infinitely outweigh any amount of pun- 
ishment, and why did he then say it were good for 
him if he had not been born? If he had not been 
born, he would have been a nonenity, and is non- 
existence preferable to an eternity of happhnvs ? 
Mr. Foster's hell does not amount to much. It is 
only a place where sin will be kept away from 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 195 

man, so that God's love can act more efficaciously 
upon him, and " run and be glorified." But why 
did Christ say of Judas, it were better if he had 
never been born ? Because he was lost. Not " as 
an apostle," as Mr. Foster so profoundly remarked 
the other night, but lost to heaven — a son of per- 
dition, a chifd of the devil, and doomed to endure 
with him eternal punishment. And as Mr. Foster 
has challenged me to this debate, and asked me to 
prove that any part of the human race shall suffer 
endless punishment, I give him this case specifi- 
cally, in addition to all those embraced in prece- 
ding texts. 

I will now predicate another argument on the 
sin against the Holy Ghost. Mark iii. 28, 29 : 
" Verily I say unto you, all sins shall be forgiven 
unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith 
soever they shall blaspheme : But he that shall 
blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, hath never 
forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." 
I have only time to introduce this testimony. Mr 
Foster says nobody is in danger of eternal damna- 
tion. Christ says to the contrary. Which tells 
the truth, Christ or Foster? 

I will also introduce 2 Thess. i. 6-10 : " See- 
ing it is a righteous thing with God to recom- 
pense tribulation to them that trouble you ; And 
to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the 
Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his 
mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance 
on them that know not God, and that obey not the 



196 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be 
punished with everlasting destruction from the 
presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his 
power." I shall offer no comment on these words. 
Turn also to Rev. xiv. 9-11 : " If any man wor- 
ship the beast and his image, and receive his mark 
in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink 
of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured 
out without mixture into the cup of his indigna- 
tion ; and he shall be tormented with fire and 
brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and 
in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their 
torment ascendeth up forever and ever." 

I will sum up the argument and testimonies of 
to-night, as follows : 

1. " The worm that dieth not and the fire that 
is not quenched." — Is. lxvi. 24. 

2. " Shame and everlasting contempt." — Dan. 
xii. 28. 

3. " Destroy both soul and body in hell." — Matt, 
x. 28. . 

4. " The tares."— Matt. xiii. 

• 5. " The sheep and the goats." — Matt. xxv. 

6. " Judas Iscariot."— Matt. xxvi. 21-25. 

7. " Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." — 
Mark iii. 28. 

8. " End is destruction."— Phil. iii. 18. 

9. " Everlasting destruction from the presence 
of God."— 2 Thess. i. 6-10. 

10. " Smoke of torment forever and ever.'" — 
Rev. xiv. 9, 10. 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 197 

MR. FOSTER'S SECOND REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators: 

Respected Hearers: 

I had hoped that my opponent ere this would 
have learned something of the rules of christian 
courtesy. His assertion that my doctrines are 
blasphemous and infidel, but illy become one who 
professes to be a minister of the gospel. We 
meet in this discussion upon equal terms ; and I 
have been willing to accord to Mr. Lozier all hon- 
esty of sentiment, and had trusted that the same 
honesty of purpose would have been accorded me 
in the proclamation of my doctrines. The words 
and manner of Mr. Lozier on the last evening 
are in striking contrast with those of to-night. 

Before proceeding to reply to the arguments of 
to-night, I wish to notice once more the passage 
introduced in his speech of Monday evening, in 
Mark xvi. 16: " He that believeth and is baptized, 
shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be 
damned." Mr. Lozier is unsparing in his charges 
of my perverting Scripture, and quoting detached 
passages ; and yet upon this passage, the only one 
introduced that has the least bearing upon the 
proposition under discussion, he left off his quota- 
tion in the middle of the paragraph. Why did he 
not read verses 17 and 18 : " And these signs shall 
follow them that believe. . In my name they shall 
cast out devils ; they shall speak with new tongues ; 
they shall take up serpents ; and if they drink any 



198 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay 
hands on the sick, and they shall recover /" I would 
ask Mr. Lozier," if the test of belief here presented 
follows the believer now? If not, why does he 
quote the passage in support of the proposition? 
Can he cast out devils, speak with a new tongue, 
take up serpents, drink deadly poisons, or lay 
hands on the sick, so that they shall recover ? If 
not, then he is no believer, for these signs were to 
follow the believer. Mr. Lozier's view of this 
passage is destructive of Christianity itself, by 
holding out the infidel argument against the Bible. 
The infidel will point to the believer, ai:d ask for 
the signs ; and from the fact that they do not fol- 
low him now, he regards it as a mere fable. And 
thus in his zeal to perpetuate a cherished sentiment 
or dogma, does Mr. Lozier sap the very founda- 
tions upon which Christianity rests. There is not 
a word in the text, or its whole connection, in sup- 
port of the proposition, or which involves the end- 
less punishment of the unbeliever. 

In not one instance on last evening did he quote 
a passage bearing upon the question under con- 
sideration. He gave us a finely written essay 
upon free agency, which had evidently been pre- 
pared with great care ; but what it had to do with 
proving the endless punishment of any part of 
God's children, we could not comprehend. Were 
we to admit his premises correct in regard to free 
agency, and God's justice, there might be some 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 19.J 

plausibility in his argument. But here is where 
he fails. He assumes that man is a free agent, 
and that God's justice is such as here attends judi- 
cial tribunals. "When the fact is, God's ways are 
not as our ways, his thoughts are not as our 
thoughts, his judgments are not as our judgments. 
While human laws, owing to the imperfection of 
the beings that enact them, are imperfect, and 
hence fail of securing the ends of justice, God's 
laws are perfect, being framed in infinite wisdom 
and dictated by infinite love, and therefore cannot 
fail of securing the desired end — the good of all 
the subjects of his government. 

Upon the theory of Mr. Lozier, there is an eter- 
nal conflict between the attributes of God, mercy 
and justice. The one would save, while the other 
would damn the sinner ! But such is not the case. 
Justice, as well as mercy, demands the final good 
of the sinner ! If endless torment be true, the de- 
mands of justice can never be satisfied ! 

I trust the audience will bear in mind the propo- 
sition before us for discussion ; and I hope you 
will have sufficient discrimination to judge as to 
the relative bearing the testimonies adduced by 
my opponent, have upon it. He has given us nu- 
merous quotations of scripture, containing threat- 
enings and denunciations ; but the very point to be 
proven, he has assumed, that they embody the idea 
of endless punishment ! Let him show from their 
phraseology or context, that they teach the endless 



200 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

torment of the wicked! He will then have la- 
bored to some purpose. What matters it, though 
he were to present a thousand testimonies, unless 
he can show that they involve the endless duration 
of punishment! They may even teach the doc- 
trine of future suffering — that suffering may be 
protracted through a million of ages, and unless 
he can prove that it will never terminate, his labor 
will be in vain. 

As I remarked, on last evening, this doctrine is 
one in which you are all personally interested. 
You are anxious to know whether the loved ones 
of the household are to be saved or damned. 
There was a mother in this city, on last Sabbath, 
whose child was suddenly taken sick. For the 
moment its life seemed poised on the balance be- 
tween time and eternity! Her soul was wrung 
with anguish and despair ! And all, in view of a 
momentary parting ! But what would be her an- 
guish, did she realize that possibly there may be 
an endless parting with her child? Now that 
mother — these mothers here to-night, all wish to 
know, whether their children will be as tenderly 
cared for, and loved with as deathless a love by 
the kind Father of all ; or whether he will forsake 
them, and compel them to sin, and suffer eternally ! 
My brother thinks it a terrible thing, that God 
should force men into heaven ! but a small matter 
that he should force them into hell! Such a 
calamity he regards with perfect indifference. 



ON END-LESS PUNISHMENT. 201 

Which would be best, to force them into heaven, 
or to force them into hell ? In the parable of the 
lost sheep, we have a beautiful representation of 
God's love. Luke xv. 4 : " What man among you, 
if he have an hundred sheep, and lose one, doth 
not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and 
go after that which is lost, until he find it?" 
What does he do then ? Does he act as Mr, 
Lozier represents God as acting? Does he say, 
you are a, free agent — you may come if you please, 
or be forever lost ? No, no ! Verse 5 : "And when 
he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, re- 
joicing." He bears it back to the flock, and there 
is great rejoicing at the recovery of the sheep. So 
with God and man. Man is lost in a wilderness 
of sin and error, and if it becomes necessary, before 
he will abandon his creatures, God will put forth his 
almighty arm, and bear them back to the fold, of 
which Jesus is the shepherd. 

As already remarked, on the last evening of the 
discussion, Mr. Lozier presented no arguments or 
testimonies bearing upon the proposition under 
investigation. To-night he has quoted quite an 
array of passages, and has endeavored to make 
some show, at least, of argument. He has intro- 
duced Isaiah lxvi. 24 ; Mark ix. 43-48 ; Daniel xii. 
1-3 ; Mark iii. 28, 29 ; Matt. xiii. 36-42 ; 2 Thess. 
i. 6-10; Matt. xxv. 31-46; Rev.'xiv. 9-11. In 
presenting these testimonies, Mr. Lozier acknowl- 
edges their parallelism — that they all teach the 



202 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



same doctrine. It being impossible, in the short 
time allotted to me, to notice them all, I will take 
two or three, acknowledged to be the strongest; 
and if these do not teach the doctrine of endless pun- 
ishment, the others will not. In not one instance, 
did he show that the passages, cited involve end- 
less punishment ! The very point to be proven, has 
been taken for granted, leaving it to the audience 
to make an application of them in accordance 
with their prejudices. 

I shall first proceed to notice the testimony ac- 
knowledged to be the strongest, and most im- 
portant — that in Matt. xxv. 31-46 — the parable of 
the sheep and goats : " When the Son of man shall 
come in his glory, and all the holy angels with 
him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 
And before him shall be gathered all nations : and 
he shall separate them one from another, as a shep- 
herd divideth his sheep from the goats : And he 
shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats 
on the left. Then shall the King say unto them 
on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my Father, 
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the 
foundation of the world : For I was an hungered, 
and ye gave me meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave 
me drink : I was a stranger, and ye took me in : 
Naked, and ye clothed me : I was sick, and ye vis- 
ited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, 
when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 203 

thirsty, and gave thee drink ? When saw we thee 
a stranger, and took thee in ? or naked, and clothed 
thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, 
and came unto thee ? And the King shall answer 
and say unto them, Verily, I say unto you, Inas- 
much as ye have done it unto one of the least of 
these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then 
shall he say also unto them on his left hand, De- 
part from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, pre- 
pared for the devil and his angels : For I was an 
hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, 
and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, 
and ye took me not in : naked, and ye clothed me 
not : sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, 
when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a 
stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not 
minister unto thee ? Then shall he answer them, 
saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did 
it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to 
me. And these shall go away into everlasting 
punishment; but the righteous into life eternal." 

Why did not Mr. Lozier, when quoting this 
parable, give the entire discourse in which it oc- 
curs ? Why did he not consult the parallel testi- 
monies bearing upon the subject ? In the begin- 
ning of the parable — verses 31, 32 — we find a 
" gathering of all nations" spoken of, and a separa- 
tion, not of individuals, but of nations ! The same 
" gathering of all nations," is referred to in Zech. 



204 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

xiv. 1-5 : " Behold the day of the Lord coraeth, 
and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. 
For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem, to 
battle ; and the city shall be taken, and the houses 
rifled, and the women ravished ; and half of the 
city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue 
of the people shall not be cut off from the city. 
* * * And ye shall flee to the valley of the 
mountains!" Our Saviour quotes from this very 
prophecy, in the preceding chapter of Matthew. 

We are not told that the characters specified in 
the parable, were to inherit the kingdom because 
they had been born again, or because they had 
faith in the gospel, but in consequence of their 
good deeds. The everlasting life, and everlasting 
punishment, were each bestowed, in consequence 
of good deeds performed or neglected. But does 
Mr. Lozier believe that future salvation is the 
result of works ? If so, what becomes of his doc- 
trine of grace? 

The discourse, of which this parable is the con- 
clusion, commences with the twenty-fourth chap- 
ter ; and by consulting the internal evidence of 
both chapters, it will be seen that he spoke with 
reference to a coming and judgment that was to 
take place during that generation. His disciples 
had shown him the buildings of the the tem- 
ple ; and he had told them of a time that 
was coming, when there should not be left one 
stone upon another, that should not be thrown 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 205 

down. They then came to him privately, saying, 
" Master tell us when these things shall be, and 
what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the 
end of the world?" What end ? The end of the 
axon or age ? By some, it is thought that reference 
is had to the personal coming of the Savior, and to 
the end of this material universe. Also, that there 
are two, if not three distinct questions propounded. 
By consulting the parallel passages in Mark and 
Luke, it will be seen that there is but one ques- 
tion ; and that " these things,"" thy coming," and 
" the end of the world," refer to the same event. In 
Mark xiii. 4, it is recorded thus: " Tell us, when 
shall these things be ? and what shall be the sign 
when all these things shall be fulfilled?" In Luke 
xxi. 7, we read as follows : " And they asked him 
saying, Master, but when shall these things be ? 
and what sign will there be, when these things 
shall come to pass?" Mark and Luke do not 
mention the coming, or the end of the world! And 
yet the answer is the same in both records. 
"Take heed that no man deceive you; for many 
shall come in my name, saying I am Christ ; and 
shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars, 
and rumors of wars : see that ye be not troubled : 
for all these things must come to pass, but the end 
is not yet." Here, in the answer, we find the 
"coming," "these things," and "the end of the 
world," all spoken of in the same connection, 
which would not have been the case, had the 



206 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

Savior referred to different events. Again, these 
little words, u ye,'* and " you," and " yours," mean 
a great deal. They prove that he was speaking to 
his disciples, directly in reference to a coming or 
judgment, in which they were personally interested. 
In the 14th verse we read, " And this gospel of 
the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for 
a witness unto all nations : and then shall the end 
come!" What end? The same end of the 
world spoken of in verse 3d. Has the end 
come? Turn to Rom. x. 16, 18: "But they 
have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, 
Lord, who hath believed our report? Lo then, 
faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word 
of God. Bat I say have they not heard ? Yes, 
verily, their sound went unto all the earth, and 
their words unto the ends of the world I" Again, 
in Col. i. 5, 6 : " For the hope which is laid up 
for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the 
word of the truth of the gospel : Which is come 
unto you as it is in all the world!" See also 
verse 23, same chapter. Thus the gospel was 
preached for a " witness unto all nations," in the 
apostle's time. Turn now to the 15th verse of the 
chapter under consideration. " When ye therefore 
shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by 
Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso 
readeth, let him understand.) What was this 
abomination of desolation ? Consult Daniel xii. 
1,2: " And at that time shall Michael stand up, 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 207 

the great prince which standeth for the children of 
thy people : and there shall be a time of trouble, 
such as never was 1 since there was a nation even 
to that same time : and at that time thy people 
shall be delivered, every one that shall be found 
written in the book. And many of them that 
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some 
to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever- 
lasting contempt." When was this "time of 
trouble" — this "abomination of desolation" spo- 
ken of, to take place ? Consult verse 6th and 7th 
of same chapter : " And one said to the man 
clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of 
the river, How long shall it be to the end of these 
ivonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, 
which was upon the waters of the river, when he 
held up his right hand and his left hand unto 
heaven, and sware by him that liveth forever, that 
it shall be for a time, times and a half; and when 
he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of 
the holy people, all these things shall be finished ! " 
The " end of these wonders," is the same end re- 
ferred to in the xxiv. of Matthew. All these 
things were to be finished when the holy people 
were scattered, which occurred at the time God's 
judgment befel the Jewish nation, in the destruc- 
tion of their city, and the overthrow of their polity. 
But we pass to Matt. xxiv. 29-31 : " Immediately 
after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun 
be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 



208 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the pow- 
ers of the heaven shall be shaken : And then 
shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven : 
and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, 
and they shall see the Son of man coming in the 
clouds of heaven, with power and and great glory. 
And he send his angels, with a great sound of 
the trumpet, and they shall gather together his 
elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven 
to the other." See parallel passages in Mark xiii. 
24-27: Luke xxi. 20-28. That this is the same 
coming spoken of in the parable of the sheep and 
goats there can be no doubt. The terms are 
synonymous. It is a coming in " glory," in "pow- 
er," — a coming with the "holy angels." You will 
observe the particular form of the metaphor here 
employed. "The sun shall be darkened, and the 
moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall 
fall from heaven, and the powers of the heaven 
shall be shaken!" Similar language was used by 
the Old Testament writers in reference to any great 
judgment or coming of God. In Isaiah xxxiv. 4 ? 
we read, " All the host of heaven shall be dis- 
solved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as 
a scroll; and all their host shall fall down, as the 
leaf falleth off from the vine, and the falling fig* 
from the fig tree. For my sword shall be bathed 
in heaven : behold, it shall come down upon Idu- 
mea, and upon the people of my curse, to judg- 
ment" The same metapor of the "darkening of 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 209 

the sun, moon and stars" was employed in regard 
to the judgment threatened upon Babylon. Isaiah 
xiii. 9, 10. Also in reference to Egypt, Ezekiel 
xxxii. 7, it is said, " And when I shall put thee 
out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars 
thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, 
and the moon shall not give her light!" But the 
prophecies from which our Saviour borrowed his 
metaphor are those of Daniel and Joel. In Joel 
ii. 30-32, we read, " And I will show wonders in 
the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and 
pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into 
darkness, and the moon into blood before the great 
and terrible day of the Lord come ! And it shall 
come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the 
name of the Lord shall be delivered ; for in Mount 
Zion, and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance /" See 
also Daniel vii. 9-14. 

But when was this coming or judgment to take 
place? See Matt. xxiv. 32 : "Verily I say unto 
you, This generation shall not pass till these things 
be fulfilled! 91 What things? The coming in 
power and glory ! The end of the world, or age ! 
But Mr. Lozier will doubtless tell us that the 
greek word genea here means race, as it some- 
times has that rendering elsewhere ; and therefore 
refers to the race of the Jews, which are still in ex- 
istence. But let us examine other testimonies. 
The same coming is recorded in Matt. xvi. 27, 28 : 
" For the Son of man shall come in the glory of 
14 



210 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

his Father, with his angels, and then he shall re- 
ward every man according to his works. Verily, 
I say unto you, There be some standing here that 
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of 
man coming in his kingdom." The parallel pas- 
sages may be found in Mark viii. 38 ; Luke ix. 26, 
27. There is no greek word genea, found in these 
passages ; no race spoken of. But he plainly de- 
clares that there were some before him, within the 
sound of his voice, who should not taste death, till 
they should see him " coming in his kingdom!" 
Do you ask for more proof? I call your attention 
to John xxi. 20-24 : " Then Peter, turning about, 
seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, following: 
(which also leaned on his breast at the supper, and 
said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?) 
Peter seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what 
shall this man do ? Jesus saith unto him, If I will 
that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ? Fol- 
low thou me. Then went this saying abroad 
among the brethren, that that disciple should not 
die : yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not 
die ; but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is 
that to thee ?" Here it is implied that John would 
live until after he came in power and glory ! See 
also Matt. x. 23 : " But when they persecute 
you in this city, flee ye into another : for verily I 
say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities 
of Israel, till the Son of man be come!" Could 
language be plainer and more positive, than the 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 211 

testimonies we have adduced, to show that the 
" end," the " coming in power and glory, with the 
holy angels," was to take place during that age, or 
generation? The Savior declares that that "gen- 
eration should not pass away' 1 '' — that there " were 
some before him who should not see death " — that 
the disciples were not to " have journeyed over the 
cities of Israel" until he should come in poiver 
and glory ! 

These testimonies fully determine the time when 
this parable of the sheep and goats was to have its 
fulfillment — in that age or generation. We now 
notice the closing verse : " And these shall go 
away into everlasting punishment ; but the right- 
eous into life eternal." The words " everlasting " 
and " eternal " are the same in both instances, and 
are placed in antithesis ; but they do not necessa- 
rily imply endless duration, in either case. John 
says, " This is life eternal, that they might know 
thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom 
thou hast sent." The everlasting punishment, was 
an age-lasting punishment. The end and aim of 
punishment being corrective, and designed to re- 
form, it cannot be endless. Christ did not come 
literally or personally ; but it was coming in 
" power and glory," to take vengeance on that na- 
tion, in the destruction of their city and temple, 
and in scattering them to the four winds of heaven ! 

The design of the parable then, was two-fold. 
It was intended to prefigure the separation which 



212 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

should take place between the true and false pro- 
fessors of Christ's religion in that age, when he 
should come in judgment upon that nation. Those 
who had been faithful, who had watched for the 
signs of his coming, who had practised his religion, 
who had done the good deeds specified, would be 
accounted worthy to escape the calamities coming 
upon that generation — they should fully inherit the 
kingdom of God, or blessings of the gospel dis- 
pensation. While those who were unfaithful, who 
had not improved their privileges, who had neg- 
lected the good deeds referred to, who had been 
hypocritical in their professions, and had failed to 
watch for the signs of his coming, would be over- 
whelmed with the Jews in one common ruin ! 
This was literally fulfilled. The true followers of 
the Savior were saved, and permitted to enter more 
completely into the gospel kingdom, while upon 
the ungodly professors, the wrath of God came to 
the uttermost! The "everlasting punishment" 
is synonymous with those judgments so frequently 
predicted in the Old Testament under the figure 
of fire! They were to experience a time of trouble 
such as never had been, nor ever should be again. 
The language of Daniel and the Savior was to be 
literally fulfilled ! And this awful punishment 
they have been experiencing as a nation for a 
period of eighteen hundred years — a period longer 
than the Levitical priesthood, or covenant of cir- 
cumcision, which were called " everlasting!" But 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 213 

even this punishment is not to be endless, as will 
be seen by consulting Rom. xi. 25-32. 

There are one or two other important facts con- 
nected with this parable, to which I desire to call 
Mr. Lozier's special attention. Mark and Luke, 
though they give the substance of chapters 24 and 
25, of Matthew, do not mention the parable of the 
sheep and goats. Not one of the disciples even 
referred to it in any of their exhortations or warn- 
ings. Paul was a faithful witness of Jesus, and 
yet he never alluded to it in any of his epistles. 
If the doctrine of endless punishment was taught 
in it, why did not the disciples quote it in their 
writings ? 

Mr. Lozier will, no doubt, give us the parable 
of the rich man and Lazarus in his next speech. 
The same remarks will apply to that. Though it 
speaks of the rich man as being in hell, in tor- 
ments, not one of the disciples ever quoted it in 
proof of the doctrine of endless punishment ! 
Paul wrote the greater part of the New Testa- 
ment — some fourteen epistles — and yet in all the 
record of his teachings, he never mentions the 
word hell once ! And yet he tells us that " he 
shunned not to declare all the counsel of God!" 
Had the theory of endless hell torments been true, 
would not Paul have taught it ? Most assuredly. 
Suppose Mr. Lozier were to preach even two or 
three sermons without mentioning the word hell, 
he would be charged at once with being a Univer 



214 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

salist! And yet Paul, in all his writings, is silent 
upon the subject ! 

I shall now take up the case of Judas, which 
seems to trouble my opponent so much, and shall 
notice his strong testimonies. Matt. xxvi. 24 : 
"The Son of man goeth, as it is written of him : 
but wo unto that man by whom the Son of man is 
betrayed! it had been good for that man had he 
not been born." Also John xvii. 12: "While I 
was with them in the world, I kept them in thy 
name : those that thou gavest me I have kept, and 
none of them is lost, but the son of perdition ; that 
the scripture might be fulfilled." What there is 
in these passages in support of the proposition, we 
are at a loss to conceive. The saying, " it were 
good for him had he not been born," was a com- 
mon proverb among the Jews. It was frequently 
used with reference to any person who had suf- 
fered affliction, or any great calamity ! It proves 
nothing, however, in regard to the doctrine of end" 
less punishment. You will note the tense of the 
latter passage quoted: "None of them is lost, but 
the son of perdition." Judas was already lost as an 
apostle, and as a fellow co-worker with the apostles 
in the gospel ministry. The language had no ref- 
erence, whatever, to his future condition. 

Turn to the account in Matt, xxvii. 3-5 : Then 
Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that 
he was condemned, repented himself, and brought 
again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 215 

and elders, saying, I have sinned, in that I have 
betrayed innocent blood. And they said, What is 
that to us ? see thou to that. And he cast down 
the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, 
and went and hanged himself." Here we find that 
Judas, when he saiv that the Savior was condemned, 
he repented, and carried back the thirty pieces of 
silver, and threw them down in the temple, declar- 
ing that he had sinned, in that he had betrayed 
innocent blood! From this we infer, that Judas 
had no idea that the Savior would be condemned. 
That the act was not committed from any enmity 
or ill will that he had for Jesus. Hence, when he 
remembered his Master's kindness and love, so 
keen and pungent was his sorrow, that he repented, 
and did all that he could to atone for the wicked 
act. He carried back the thirty pieces of silver, 
and there, in that judgment hall, alone, of all the 
disciples, he declared the innocence of the Son of 
God ! Where were the rest of the disciples ? 
Where was James, and John, and Peter, and the 
others, whom Mr. Lozier believes are saved and 
blessed ? Turn to Matt. xxvi. 6 : " Then all the 
disciples forsook him and fled V And even Peter 
denied him. and cursed and swore that he knew 
not the man ! And yet Peter will be saved, and 
Judas damned! There is a stronger argument 
against the salvation of Peter than Judas. For 
Jesus says : " Him that denieth me before men, 
him will I also deny before my Father which is in 



216 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

heaven !" Peter denied him thrice, and if this lan- 
guage is to be understood literally, then there is no 
hope for Peter. 

But Mr. Lozier will, no doubt, admit the gen- 
uiness of the repentance of Judas ; but will contend 
for his endless punishment, on the ground that he 
hung- himself, or committed suicide! But does 
Mr. Lozier really believe that Judas hanged him- 
self, and that it is in consequence of this act that 
he is to be damned ? If so, I have some work for 
him to do. We have two accounts of the death of 
Judas. In Matt, xxvii. 5, we read : "And he cast 
down the pieces of siver in the temple, and de- 
parted, and went and hanged himself.'''' In Acts i. 
18, it is said : " Now this man purchased a field 
with the reward of his iniquity ; and falling head- 
long, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his 
bowels gushed out!" Now, in the one passage it 
is said, he "hanged himself!" in the other, that he 
"fell headlong," and was killed in the fall. 
There is an apparent discrepancy in these two ac- 
counts of the death of Judas. If my opponent 
really believes that Judas hanged himself, I want 
him to reconcile these two passages. There is but 
one way in which it can be done ; and that is on 
the ground that there is a wrong translation in one 
of them, which is the case with the passage found 
in Matthew. Commentators of note, among whom 
is Dr. Clarke, say that it should have been rendered, 
"was strangled," '^suffocated with grief," or " choked 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 217 

with anguish." This view of the subject, removes 
the apparent difficulty, and harmonizes the two 
passages. His sufferings were so intense, when he 
saw the magnitude of the crime, and realized his 
Master's innocence — when he remembered the 
great love of Jesus, his kindness, and good will,, 
nature sank beneath the load of guilt, and he died 
of excessive grief and sorrow ! We have no record 
upon the past or present history of the world, of a 
repentance like that of Judas! Look over your 
community, and see if you can find an individual, 
who has been guilty of wrong — who has defrauded 
the widow and the orphan, or amassed a fortune 
dishonestly, that has gone like poor Judas, and 
carried back the thirty pieces, making a full confes- 
sion of his sins! Show me the man who has been 
guilty of these wrongs, who has made loud profes- 
sions of repentance when he has joined the church, 
or been converted, according to Mr. Lozier's 
theory, that has made full restitution for his extor- 
tions, or the wrong- that he has done ! When you 
do this, then I will acknowledge that we have a 
parallel case to that of Judas ! 

With this I close for to-night ; and would ex- 
hort you to dismiss your prejudices, and be gov- 
erned by the weight of testimony in the argument 
presented. Do not take the mere assertion of the 
speaker, in proof of all he says, unless accompanied 
with testimonies that are plain and positive. 
"Prove all things, and hold fast that which is 
good." 



SIXTH NIGHT 



MR. LOZIER'S THIRD SPEECH. 

Messrs. Moderators : 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 
I wish to make a remark or two at the outset, 
in regard to Mr. Foster's speech on Wednesday 
evening. It was a tissue of sophisms, and petty- 
little quibbles, from beginning to end, and I do not 
propose to insult this intelligent audience by going 
into an explanation of the inconsistencies and ab- 
surdities with which he attempted to meet my ar- 
guments. Nor is it necessary that any such ex- 
planation should be made, for the whole thing was 
perfectly transparent to every man and woman 
possessed of common sense, and not utterly 
blinded by prejudice. I have certainly, for my 
own part, never seen so so much dust thrown in 
so short a time. There are a few points, however, 
that I will notice, lest the gentleman should try to 
make capital out of the omission, and lest some of 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 219 

his ardent admirers should conclude, from my not 
noticing them, that his arguments were unan- 
swerable. 

In the first place, in regard to the effort he made 
to obscure from your view, (for he did not attempt 
to meet it) my argument founded on what is said 
in relation to the coming of Christ, his coming " in 
his glory," Matt. xxv. 31, and remaining verses of 
the chapter. The attempt he made to get rid of 
the overwhelming force of the declarations con- 
tained in that passage, by making them refer to 
the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, was mis- 
erably lame; it was pitiable, in the extreme. 
Says Matthew, "When the Son of man shall come 
in his glory." Mr. Foster says, " he came in his 
glory, at the destruction of Jerusalem." Very 
well ; let us go a little further with Matthew, and 
see what he says. He says, "all the holy angels 
are to come with him ; that the throne of his glory 
will be set, and he will sit upon it, and that all 
the nations of the earth shall be gathered to- 
gether before him." Now, just here, Mr. Foster 
attempts to make a point on the word " nations." 
He takes that word as conclusive evidence that 
this passage cannot refer to a general judgment, 
for in that case it would be, not as nations, but as in- 
dividuals that men would be gathered together and 
stand before God. This is a mere quibble. What 
difference does it make, whether they were nations 
or individuals ? Those of them who were wicked, 



220 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

were driven away into everlasting punishment > that 
is very sure. He may call it nations, or individ- 
uals, just as he pleases, the result will be the same, 
and alike fatal to his doctrine. Did Christ "come," 
at the destruction of Jerusalem ? Did he " sit 
upon the throne of his glory?" Were "all na- 
tions gathered together before him?" Did he 
" separate the sheep from the goats ?" The idea 
that that passage refers to any thing but a final 
judgment of the entire human race, is too prepos- 
terous and absurd to deserve an answer. 

In trying to do away with the parable, Mr. Fos- 
ter disputes the authenticity of the Bible, and says, 
neither Mark nor Luke record it, and asks if they 
were not as truthful historians as Matthew ; thus, 
by imputation, calling Matthew's veracity in 
question. I am quite willing to trust Matthew in 
preference to Mr. Foster. In relation to the state- 
ment, that in " thirty years of preaching," St. Paul 
never mentioned Matthew's parable, I will say, 
that Paul wrote his letters one year before 
Matthew wrote his gospel, and it was easy to see 
why Paul could not quote what was not yet 
written. 

Mr. Foster has a great depth of affection for the 
disciples, especially Judas. Of all the twelve, he 
tells us, Judas was the most faithful — he staid 
with Christ when all the rest had fled — and if he 
did sin against his Lord, his repentance was one 
of the most genuine instances of repentance to be 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 221 

found upon record. Now, it may be necessary to 
remind the gentleman that we are not disputing 
about the repentance of Judas. The question is, 
was, or is Judas lost? After all Mr. Foster's talk 
about Judas, his faithfulness, and his genuine 
repentance for the one trivial fault of selling his 
Savior for thirty pieces of silver, he has never yet 
touched the question, was Judas lost? That is 
the only connection Judas has with this discussion; 
and as Mr. Foster has not touched the question of 
Judas' salvation, or damnation, he cannot claim to 
have, in the least, discredited the argument I pre- 
sented, based on the eternal damnation of the 
betrayer of Christ. 

"With the exception of these feeble attempts to 
get rid of Christ's description of the final judg- 
ment, as given by Matthew, and the case of the 
son of perdition, and a few more glittering and 
specious generalities, not one of all the ten argu- 
ments I presented, on last Wednesday night, have 
been even touched by my opponent. 

God's punishments, says he, are always reform- 
atory in their character, not judicial or vindictive. 
That may be a well sounding phrase to catch the 
ear and captivate the soul, and lull it into the fatal 
sleep that ends in death, but it will not bear the 
searching light of truth, of scripture or experience. 
From the time when God, for the wickedness of 
man, destroyed nearly the entire race from off the 
face of the earth by a deluge, down to the present 



222 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

time, the past is full of instances of the total de- 
struction of the wicked, by the fierce anger of the 
Almighty. Look at the case recorded in 1st Sam. 
vi. 19: "And he smote the men of Beth-shemesh, 
because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, 
even he smote of the people fifty thousand and 
three score and ten men ; and the people lamented, 
because the Lord had smitten many of the people 
with a great slaughter." Now, in this case, either 
God acted as u an indulgent father," as Mr. Foster 
expresses it, or else as a sovereign executive or 
judge. If the latter, Mr. Foster's position is lost ; 
if the former, he will please explain to us how the 
slaughtering of those fifty thousand men "re- 
formed" them under his system of "disciplinary 
punishment." 

Mr. Foster seemed to be very much troubled 
about the parable of Dives and Lazarus. Luke 
xvi. 19-31 i m " There was a certain rich man, 
which was clothed in purple and fine linen and 
fared sumptuously every day. * * * And it 
came to pass, that the beggar died, and was 
carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. 
The rich man also died, and was buried : And 
in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." 
Here are the points : " The rich man died and 
was buried." So what happened to him, came 
after death and burial. Mr. Foster has distinctly 
defined two hells that he believes in, and strongly 
hinted at a third. First he located his hell in the 
future state, beyond the judgment, where Christ's 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 223 

love would bring them to repentance and happi- 
ness at last. Second, he located hell between 
death and the resurrection, at which, very strangely, 
all were to arise purified and holy, notwithstand- 
ing that during the interim, the body was to lie 
unconscious in the grave, and the soul to be happy. 
Mr. Foster's third hell was in this life, wherein he 
strongly intimated that men received all their pun- 
ishment, but did not tell us how. Now, in this 
parable, Christ illustrates, in metaphor, the state of 
the good and bad after death. Dives means a 
rich man. Lazarus means a poor man, or a help- 
less man. The rich man had reveled in luxury, 
and disregarded the helplessness of the poor. He 
dies and is buried. " In hell he lifted up his eyes 
being in torment." Then that spoils Mr. Foster's 
hell in this life, for here is a hell after death. It 
also spoils Mr. Foster's purifying process under 
the superior displays of Christ's love, for Dives 
thought it was a " horrible place." Take a com- 
mon sense view of the matter. Suppose you 
were to set off one ward in the city of Indianapo- 
lis, and there shut up all the low thieves and pros- 
titutes and villains of every grade, raise an impas- 
sable barrier between them and all good people, 
and thus make it as much worse than the " Five 
Points " of New York as that place is worse than 
the same places in Indianapolis, what sort of a 
place would that be to cultivate and perfect holi- 
ness ? If it is a good place, then, by analogy, the 



224 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

brothel is a better school of virtue, than your virtu- 
ous homes and your sanctuaries. 

Bat Dives said he was fearfully tormented ; and 
further along in the parable, he wanted water to 
"cool his parched tongue." But Abraham, or 
Christ, through the parable, said, " Between us and 
you there is a great gulf fixed ; so that they which 
would pass from hence to you cannot, neither can 
they pass to us that would come from thence." 
This spoils Mr. Foster's reformatory hell, where 
men can be made holy after suffering "a thousand 
years, or a million ages." These are Christ's words, 
and his infinite mind took in all of eternity. If 
men who were in hell could get out by any pro- 
cess, he would not have so positively stated that 
they could not pass who would, "to us from 
thence." Mr. Foster makes no difference between 
God's " chastisements," which are corrective, and 
his " punishments," which are judicial. If a child 
of God grows careless and unfaithful, God may, 
and often does, lay his chastisements upon such to 
bring them back. If a sinner rejects God's love, 
and "being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, he 
shall suddenly be cut off, and that without remedy." 

Punishments do not bring such sinners to re- 
pentance 4 . Hear John upon this subject: Rev. 
xvi. H-9 : "And the fourth angel poured out his 
vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him 
to scorch men with fire, and men were scorched 
with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 225 

which hath power over these plagues: and they 
repented not to give him glory." See also verses 
10-1:2, of the same chapter: "And the fifth 
angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the 
beast : and his kingdom was full of darkness, and 
they gnawed their tongues for pain, and blas- 
phemed the God of heaven, because of their pains 
and their sores, and repented not of their deeds. 
And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the 
great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was 
dried up, that the way of the kings of the east 
might be prepared." Jesus Christ himself said, 
nearly two thousand years ago : " Whosoever is 
ashamed of me in this adulterous and sinful gen- 
eration, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed 
when he cometh in the glory of his Father, with 
the holy angels." Mark viii. 38. If they are to 
be changed and made holy before the resurrection, 
why will he be ashamed of them ? 

Again, in Matt. x. 14-15, we have an expression 
of Christ in regard to Sodom and Gomorrah, that 
has a bearing upon this point. He there says to 
his disciples : " And whosoever shall not receive 
you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of 
that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable 
for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day 
of judgment, than for that city." 

Perhaps the most remarkable of all Mr. Foster's 
remarkable positions; or at least among the most 
15 



226 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

remarkable of them, was that, where he instituted 
a comparison between Judas Iscariot and Peter, at 
the expense of Peter. He pointed us to Matt, 
xxvi. 56 : " Then all the disciples forsook him and 
fled," Peter among the rest. Judas was the only 
one that stayed behind to tell the judges that 
Christ was innocent. Then he told us how Peter 
denied him not once only, but three different 
times ; and how he cursed and swore he did not 
know him at all, and so on. And then, says he, 
" Christ said, he that denieth me before men, him 
will I deny before my Father and the holy angels." 
What was his conclusion? Peter is damned! He 
denied Christ, and Christ will deny him. So Mr. 
Foster damns Peter to save Judas. But he does 
not save him after all, for Judas too denied Christ 
before Peter did, and therefore he is damned ac- 
cording to Mr. Foster's own showing. Peter's 
bitter repentance, his subsequent faithful services, 
and his final martyrdom for the sake of Christ — 
all go for nothing according to Mr. Foster's theory. 
Peter and Judas both denied Christ, and both are 
damned — it is damnation after all, any way you 
can fix it. 

Paul, in Hebrews vi. 4-6, says : " For it is 
impossible for those who were once enlightened, 
and have tasted of the heavenly gift and were 
made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have 
tasted of the good word of God and the powers 
of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 227 

renew them again unto repentance ; seeing they 
crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and 
put him to an open shame." If it is "impossible 
to renew them unto repentance," how are they 
going to be saved? Will Mr. Foster please tell 
us that? He does not pretend that they will ever 
get out of his reformatory hell unless they repent, 
St. Paul says they cannot be led to repent — that it 
is impossible; and I take it that "impossible" 
means impossible. Mr. Foster, however, differs 
from Paul, and says it is possible, and that it ivill 
be done. I will point you also to what Christ 
says, Matt. xii. 45: "Then goeth he, and taketh 
with himself seven other spirits more wicked than 
himself, and they enter in and dwell there ; and 
the last state of that man is worse than the first." 

It will be recollected that in my opening speech, 
on last Monday night, I brought forward an argu- 
ment that no human being to whom the gospel is 
intelligibly preached will be saved, if he wilfully 
and persistently reject it — an argument supported 
by Christ's words : " He that believeth not shall 
be damned " — not is damned — and many similar 
passages of scripture to the same intent. To that 
argument, up to this moment Mr. Foster has 
never replied. It is the one great question that he 
will not answer : Shall the wilful rejecter of 
Christ and his gospel be saved? Did Paul tell 
the truth when he said to the Ephesians : "By 
grace are ye saved through faith." — Eph. ii. 8. Or, 



228 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

on the other hand, can men be saved who deliber- 
ately and wilfully, and persistently reject the gos- 
pel and ivill not believe? This is the question 
that most intimately concerns immortal beings, and 
I call upon Mr. Foster, for the sake of the souls of 
those who hear him, to tell them plainly and in 
the fear of God, whether any of them can be saved 
without faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and obedi- 
ence to his teachings. I repeat the inquiry : Can 
a person be saved without obedience and faith in 
the Lord Jesus Christ, unless that person be a 
heathen, an infant or an idiot? This is the one 
vital and all-important question, upon which it be- 
hooves us to be candid and honest, if upon no 
other. If Mr. Foster will not answer any other 
question, let him answer this one. 

Again, as to a future judgment, Paul says God 
" hath appointed a day in which he will judge the 
world in righteousness, by that man whom 
he hath ordained." In Acts xxiv. 25, we are 
told that Paul before Felix, "reasoned of righteous- 
ness, temperance, and judgment to come." The 
same idea, of a judgment to come is set forth in 
Romans ii. 4-6 : " Or despiseth thou the riches of 
his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering ; 
not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth 
thee to repentance ! But after thy hardness and 
impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath 
against the day of wrath, and revelation of the 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 229 

righteous judgment of God; who will render to 
every man according to his deeds." According to 
Paul the judgment is to come; according to Mr. 
Foster it is past. 

What is the proof he brings to show that the 
judgment is not future? Why, Christ said, when 
the judgment of this world was about to condemn 
him to the death of the cross : " Now is the 
judgment of this world." As much as to say : 
" You are judging now." But Christ did not stop 
there ; he continued, verse 49, " I come, not to 
judge the world, but to save the world. He that 
rejecteth me and receiveth not my words hath one 
that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, 
the same shall judge him, at the last day" This 
explains what John says in Rev. xx. 12-15 : "And 
I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God ; 
and the books were opened, and another book was 
opened, which is the book of life ; and the dead 
were judged out of those things which were writ- 
ten in the books, according to their works. And 
the sea gave up the dead which were in it ; and 
death and hell delivered up the dead which were 
in them ; and they were judged every man accord- 
ing to their works. And death and hell were cast 
into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 
And whosoever was not found written in the 
book of life, was cast into the lake of fire." This 
is the Bible account of the final condition of the 
wicked. I warn you, my hearers, not to listen for a 



230 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

moment to the siren song of Urtiversalism, but re- 
ceive the words of Paul to the Gal. vi. 7-8: "Be 
not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever 
a man soweth, that shall he also reap ! for he that 
soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption ; 
but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit 
reap life everlasting." 



MR. FOSTER'S THIRD REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators : 

Respected Friends : 
[ do not propose in this, my closing speech, to 
follow Mr. Lozier in his uncharitable insinuations 
about my doctrine, or in his attempts to excite the 
prejudices of the audience, by gross carricatures 
and misrepresentations. He has cause to thank 
the reporter, that many of the rough and harsh ex- 
pressions, used in his speech of Wednesday even- 
ing, were stricken out before it went to press. His 
allusion to my old book, and manuscripts, are not 
worthy of a notice. I would inform him, however, 
that the old book, about which he is so nervous, is 
none other than the word of God, which is sharper 
than a two edged sword! Whatever may have 
been my fate, in the discussions alluded to by my 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 231 

opponent, this large and intelligent audience, will 
be the judges as to how I stand upon the present 
occasion. 

You will bear in mind the fact, that Mr. Lozier 
has ignored the argument I founded upon the 
justice of God. My position was, that God's jus- 
tice was infinitely perfect. That the simple idea 
of justice was right — that whatever is wrong in 
the moral world, was to be righted, and all oppo- 
sing influences to man's happiness destroyed. 
That God's justice demanded the final holiness 
and happiness of all intelligent beings! That 
God's law was founded in justice ; and that there 
was no penalty annexed to it, that would in any 
wise subvert its benevolent design. Several testi- 
monies were presented, showing the harmony be- 
tween God's justice and mercy. That the one 
demanded no more than was sanctioned by the 
other. That the very idea of justice, presupposes 
that a time must come when its demands will be 
satisfied, which cannot be the case, if the doctrine 
of endless punishment is true. But this argument 
Mr. Lozier has failed to notice. 

My negative argument on the certainty of re- 
wards and punishments, has met the same fate 
with that on the divine justice. I endeavored to 
show, upon the hypothesis of Mr. Lozier's doctrine, 
that it destroyed all certainty in the administration 
of rewards and punishments. That an individual 
might live a life of virtue and goodness for fifty 



232 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

years, and yet one step aside from the path of obe- 
dience, was all that was required to consign him 
to endless punishment! While on the other hand, 
an individual may live a life of profligacy and 
wickedness, and yet be saved on the ground of 
repentance, even though it come just before death. 
So that in the one case, there is no reward for the 
good deeds ; and in the other, no punishment for 
the evil deeds of half a century ! While the scrip- 
tures proclaim the fact, that "we are to receive 
according to that we have done, whether good or 
bad I" I offered these arguments as incontroverti- 
ble proofs against the proposition, and yet Mr. 
Lozier has failed to meet them. 

In my reply to Mr. Lozier's speech of Wednesday 
evening, I noticed two or three of the most promi- 
nent testimonies, upon which he predicated his 
argument. By quoting them in the same connec- 
tion, he acknowledged them to be parallel. I now 
propose briefly noticing those, that for want of 
time, were passed over. Nor can I give a full 
exposition of either of them. I shall only show 
that they do not teach the doctrine of endless pun- 
ishment ! 

The first passage introduced in proof of the 
proposition, was Isaiah lxvi. 24: "And they shall 
go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that 
have transgressed against me: for their worm 
shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched ; 
and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 233 

The parallel passages may be found in Mark ix. 
43-48: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it 
is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than 
having two hands to go into hell r into the fire that 
shall never be quenched : Where their worm dieth 
not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot 
offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter 
halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into 
hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched. 
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck 
it out: it is better for thee to enter into the king- 
dom of God with one eye, than having two eyes 
to be cast into hell fire : Where their worm dieth 
not, and the fire is not quenched." This language 
of the Savior was quoted without comment. 
Why did not Mr. Lozier read the 23d verse of 
Isaiah Ixvi? "And it shall come to pass from one 
new moon to another, and from one sabbath to 
another, all flesh shall come and worship before 
me saith the Lord; and they shall go forth and 
look upon the carcasses of the men that have 
transgressed against me : for their worm shall not 
die, and their fire shall not be quenched!" This- 
fire that was not to be quenched, was in a place 
where there are new moons and sabbaths ! Will 
Mr. Lozier inform us whether there are new moons 
and sabbaths in eternity? If not, why does he 
quote this passage in support of the proposition ? 
The Savior, in Mark ix., meant no more than the 



234 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

prophet. He referred to the punishment or judg- 
ment that was to befal that generation. The fire 
alluded to was called hell-fire, or gehenna fire! 
Why did he not attempt to show that gehenna 
here had reference to the future state, and that its 
punishment was endless! He assumes the very 
point to be proven. The word gehenna, rendered 
hell, in the passage under consideration, occurs but 
twelve times in the New Testament. Seven times 
it is found in Matthew, three times in Mark, once 
in Luke, and once in James. The Savior and 
James are the only two persons who ever used it! 
The phrase hell-fire was never used when address- 
ing the Gentiles. John wrote his gospel for their 
benefit, and yet he makes no mention of it. Paul 
was a preacher of the Gentiles, and yet in the his- 
tory of his preaching in Acts, nor in his fourteen 
epistles, is there any record of it ! If the doctrine 
of endless punishment was taught in the phrase, 
why did they not declare it? Let Mr. Lozier 
answer these questions. Only twice was the word 
used when addressing the Jews. In every other 
instance where it is -found, he was addressing his 
own disciples! So much for the passages in 
Isaiah and Mark. 

We come now to Matt. x. 28 : "And fear not 
them which kill the body, but are not able to kill 
the soul: but rather fear him which is able to 
destroy both soul and body in hell." Upon this 
passage, as in the case of those already noticed, 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 235 

Mr. Lozier based his argument upon assumption. 
The same word gehenna is here used. Why does 
he not show that it is beyond death and the resur- 
rection, and endless in its existence ? But mark 
the language of Jesus : " But rather fear him 
which is able to destroy both soul and body in 
hell!" If the passage refers to the future state, 
and the soul and body refer to the immortal spirit, 
and mortal body of man — and the destruction is to 
be understood in a literal sense, can the doctrine 
of endless punishment be true ? The immortal 
spirit and mortal body both destroyed! How, then, 
can they suffer ? So that in this view of the case, 
there is nothing in this passage to sustain the 
proposition. Again, it is certain that the Savior 
referred to the principle which is called the immor- 
tal spirit ? The word in the passage under con- 
sideration, rendered soul, is pseuche, which is some- 
times rendered merely animal life. Turn to Matt. 
ii. 10: "They are dead which sought the young 
child's life /" But did they seek the immortal 
spirit of the child ? The same word occurs in 
Matt. vi. 25 : " Take no thought for your life 
(pseuche) what ye shall eat. Is not the life more 
than meat?" That the sacred writers made a 
clear distinction between soul and spirit, is evident. 
1st Thess. v. 23 : "I pray God, your whole spirit, 
and soul, and body, be preserved blameless, unto 
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Once 
more, Heb. iv. 12 : " For the word of God is quick 



236 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

and powerful, and shaper than any two edged 
sword, piercing, even to the dividing asunder of 
soul and spirit!" The word rendered spirit, is 
nowhere used in connection with gehenna or hell! 
The spirit is never said to be destroyed in hell! I 
call upon Mr. Lozier to show one passage where it 
is said that the spirit of man is to be destroyed or 
tormented in hell! The prophet says of the spirit : 
u Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was : 
and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it !" 
And you nowhere read of a spirit going anywhere 
else, but to the God who created it ! 

The passage in Dan. xii. 1,2, was noticed on 
Wednesday evening, in connection with the para- 
ble of the sheep and goats. You will bear in 
mind my remarks upon that occasion, as it is not 
necessary that I should repeat them at this time. 

Next comes the parable of the tares. Matt. xiii. 
36-43 : " Then Jesus sent the multitude away, 
and went into the house: and his disciples came 
unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of 
the tares of the field. He answered and said unto 
them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of 
man ; The field is the world ; the good seed are 
the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the 
children of the wicked one ; The enemy that 
sowed them is the devil ; the harvest is the end of 
the world ; and the reapers are the angels. As 
therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the 
fire ; so shall it be in the end of this world. The 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 2o7 

Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they 
shall gather out of his kingdom all things that 
offend, and them which do iniquity ; And shall 
cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be 
wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the 
righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of 
their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him 
hear." 

In this parable, we have the " Son of man," the 
"devil," the "angels," the "furnace of fire," and 
the "end of the world!" In Matt. xxiv. and xxv. 
chapters, noticed on the last evening of discussion, 
we have the same events and characters spoken of, 
and the time of their fulfillment set forth. In the 
parable of the sheep and goats, we have the " com- 
ing of the Son of man, with his holy angels " — 
the separation of the wheat and tares, under the 
figure of sheep and goats! the "devil," and 
the " furnace of fire," as well as the " everlasting 
punishment," which corresponds with the "burning 
of the tares ! " Those of you who were present 
on the last night of discussion, will remember, 
that we presented quite a number of testimonies 
showing that the "coming of Christ," and "end 
of the world," or age, took place during that gen- 
eration. Mr. Lozier will not deny that the same 
end of the world is spoken of in the parable of 
the tares, that we find in Matt. xxiv. 3: " What 
is the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the 
world?" In the parable of the tares we read, 



238 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

" The harvest is the end of the world V By keep- 
ing in mind the testimonies adduced on last eve- 
ning, you will readily understand the design and 
meaning of this parable of the tares. Jesus was 
warning them of that great calamity that was 
coming upon the Jewish nation in the end of that 
age, or dispensation. And " fire," as well as 
" furnace of fire," and " everlasting fire," was bor- 
rowed from the prophets of old, when denouncing 
this judgment of heaven ! In Ezek. xxii. 18-22, 
we have this strong and emphatic language upon 
the subject : " Son of man, the house of Israel is 
to me become dross : all they are brass, and tin, 
and iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace ; 
they are even the dross of silver. Therefore, thus 
saith the Lord God, Because ye are all become 
dross, behold, therefore, 1 will gather you into the 
midst of Jerusalem. As they gather silver, and 
brass, and iron, and lead, and tin, into the midst 
of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; 
so will I gather you 'in mine anger, and in my 
fury, and I will leave you there, and melt you. 
Yea, I will gather you, and blow upon you in the 
fire of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in the 
midst thereof. As silver is melted in the midst of 
the furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst 
thereof; and ye shall know that I the Lord have 
poured out my fury upon you!" This passage is 
plain, and needs no comment. In Isaiah xxxi. 9, 
we read of this furnace of fire ! "And he shall 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 239 

pass over to his strong-hold for fear, and his prin- 
ces shall be afraid of the ensign, saith the Lord, 
whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusa- 
lem!" See also Dent. iv. 20. 1st Kings viii. 51. 
Here we find the "furnace of fire" without going 
to the eternal world. And this is the same figure 
used in the parable of the tares. This punish- 
ment, as well as that recorded in Matt, xxv., was 
to take place in that generation — during the life- 
time of some of those present, when the words 
fell from the Savior's lips. 

We come now to Mark iii. 28, 29 : "Verily I 
say unto you, all sins shall be forgiven unto the 
sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever 
they shall blaspheme : but he that shall blaspheme 
against the Holy Ghost, hath never forgivness, but 
is in danger of eternal damnation." Why did not 
Mr. Lozier quote the parallel passage in Matt. xii. ? 
This would have thrown some light on the text 
presented. Matt. xii. 31, 32: "Wherefore I say 
unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be 
forgiven unto men : but the blasphemy against the 
Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And 
whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of 
man, it shall be forgiven him : but whosoever 
speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be 
forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the 
world to come." In the passage in Mark, it reads, 
"hath never forgivness ! but is in danger of eternal 
damnation!" It does not say, will suffer endless 



240 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

punishment! In Matt, xii., it says, "shall not be 
forgiven, neither in this world, (aiori) neither in the 
world (aion) to cornel" That is, neither under 
that age, nor the age to come ! It has no reference 
to the eternal world! But does Mr. Lozier him- 
self, think that the sin against the Holy Ghost 
cannot be forgiven under any circumstances? If 
so, then I will place him at issue with the apostle, 
where he says, " The blood of Christ cleanseth 
from all sin!' 1 the sin against the Holy Ghost 
not excepted. Dr. Clarke also says, that this sin 
can be forgiven. Let him read the Doctor's com- 
ments upon the passage under consideration. By 
consulting verse 31, the subject will appear plain : 
"Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and 
blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men ; but the 
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be 
forgiven unto men!" That is, all other sins are 



■& 



more readily ox easily forgiven, than the sin against 
the Holy Ghost. Even admitting that this sin 
could not be forgiven " neither in this world, 
neither in the world to come," may it not be for- 
given in the worlds to come? The apostle says, 
Eph. ii. 7 : " That in the ages (aions — worlds) to 
come, he might show the exceeding riches of his 
grace, in his kindness toward us, through Christ 
Jesus." 

Mr. Lozier again calls up the case of Judas, not 
satisfied with his previous efforts to prove his dam- 
nation. I have already said all that is necessary 



ON ENDLKSS PUNISHMENT. 241 

to be said on this case. The points that I have 
made, he has failed to touch. I called upon him 
to reconcile the two accounts of his death, which 
he has failed to do. I have already shown that 
the phrase, " It were good for him had he not been 
born," was a proverbial one among the Jews, 
when any one suffered affliction, or any great 
calamity ! That no reference is had to the future 
condition of Judas. That he was lost as an apos- 
tle, and as a fellow co-laborer with the rest of the 
disciples. I referred you to the testimony of Dr. 
Clarke, who, with all his research and investiga- 
tion of the case of Judas, could find no positive 
evidence of his final damnation! He says : "I find 
no positive evidence of the final damnation of Judas, 
in the sacred text !J And yet, Mr. Lozier finds it 
an easy matter to prove his endless damnation! 
Shall we rest the final destiny of an immortal being, 
upon testimony that is not positive ? Upon testi- 
mony of an implied or doubtful character? I trust 
not, 

I shall now proceed to examine his strong testi- 
mony in Rev. xiv. 9, 10 : " If any man worship the 
beast and his image, and receive his mark in his 
forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of 
the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out 
without mixture into the cup of his indignation ; 
and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, 
in the presence of the holy angels, and in the pres- 
ence of the Lamb : and the smoke of their torment 
16 



242 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

ascendeth up for ever and ever." Here we find a 
torment with " fire and brimstone" — this " lake of 
fire," of which Mr. Lozier has had so much to say— 
this " torment that ascendeth up forever and ever!" 
By a close attention to the subject, it will be seen that 
this lake of fire, terrible, as it may be, is nevertheless, 
in this world! We read in Rev. xix. 20 : "And the 
beast was taken, and with him the false prophet, that 
wrought miracles before him, with which he de- 
ceived them that had received the mark of the beast, 
and them that worshipped his image. These both 
were cast alive into the lake of fire and brim- 
stone /" Allowing this passage to refer to the fu- 
ture world, we find both the beast and false prophet 
cast alive into this lake of fire ! neither of whom 
had experienced the power of a resurrection ! If 
this view be correct, what becomes of Mr. Lozier's 
doctrine of the resurrection and judgment? For 
neither of these characters are represented as hav- 
ing been dead, or raised from the dead! In Rev. 
xx. 10, we have the same lake of fire : "And the 
devil which deceived them was cast into the lake 
of fire and brimstone, where the beast and false 
prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night, 
forever and ever V If there are days and nights in 
eternity, then this lake of fire, and the punishment 
in it are there ; but not otherwise. This is the 
same fire referred to in Matt. xxv. 41 ; Matt. xiii. 
42; Ezek. xxii. 17-22. 

The expression, lake of fire and brimstone, occurs 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 243 

nowhere in the Bible except in the book of Reve- 
lation. Fire and brimstone are used in different 
parts of the Bible, and always represent God's 
punishments, afflictions, and trials in this life ! In 
Job xviii. 15, it is said, when speaking of the 
wicked, " Brimstone shall be scattered upon his 
habitation." In Psalms xi. 6, we read: "Upon the 
wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and 
an horrible tempest; this shall be the portion of 
their cup!" No allusion to eternity! In Isaiah 
xxxiv. 9, 10, it is recorded, in reference to Idumea :. 
"And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch,, 
and the dust thereof into brimstone^ and the land 
thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be 
quenched night nor day ; the smoke thereof shall 
go up forever; from generation to generation it 
shall lie waste ; none shall pass through it forever 
and ever!" Ezekiel, when speaking of the diso- 
bient and wicked, declares that the Lord will send 
upon them an " overflowing rain, and great hail 
stones, fire and brimstone /" 

Dr. Clarke seemed to think the lake of fire in 
this ivorld, as well as the torment experienced in 
it. He says, in his comment on Rev. xix. 20, 21 : 
" That worshipped his image. The beast has been 
represented as the Latin empire; the image of the 
beast, the Popes of Rome ; and the false prophet, 
the Papal clergy. Were cast alive into the lake of 
fire ; were discomfitted when alive, in the zenith of 
their power, and destroyed with an utter destruc- 



244 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



Now, it matters not what punishment was spo- 
ken of in Revelation, the very internal evidence of 
the book shows that it was near at hand ! That 
the events recorded were to have their fulfillment 
during that age or generation! And as Mr. Lozier 
has relied much upon this book of Revelation, 
and has had so much to say about the " lake of 
fire" and " torment with fire and brimstone" I 
shall examine for a moment the internal evidence, 
from which it will be seen that the "judgment" 
and "torment" so frequently mentioned in it were 
shortly to take place ! In Rev. i. 1, we read : " The 
revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto 
him, to shew unto his servants things which must 
shortly come to pass!" Again, in Rev. xi. 8, it is 
said : " And their dead bodies shall be in the 
street of the great city, which spiritually is called 
Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord ivas cruci- 
fied!" In the closing chapter of the book, xxii. 
10-12, when he was about to seal it up, the angel 
said unto him, " Seal not the sayings of the 
prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand! 
He that is unjust, let him be unjust si ill ; and he 
which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that 
is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that 
is holy, let him be holy still. And behold, I come 
quickly ! and my reward is with me, to give to every 
man according as his works shall be!" In the last 
verse he adds: "He which testifieth the^e things, 
saith, Surely I come quickly !" Compare this Ian- 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 245 

guage with Matt. xvi. 27-28 : " For the Son of 
man shall come in the glory of his Father, with 
his angels ; and then he shall reward every man 
according to his works! Verily I say unto you, 
There be some standing here, which shall not taste of 
death, till they see the Son of man coming in his 
kingdom! 11 Here is the same coming, and the 
same reward spoken of by the Revelator, that was 
u shortly to come to pass /" that was then "near 
at hand! 11 The time was then rapidly approach- 
ing, when the judgment and coming to take ven- 
geance on that nation, should be consummated. 
But as I am anxious to make this subject as plain 
as possible, I will call your attention to other testi- 
monies from the Epistles — testimonies which were 
written within a short time of that great calamity 
that befel the Jewish nation, in the destruction of 
their city and temple, and in the overthrow of their 
peculiar institutions. In James v. 8, 9, we read : 
" Be ye (my disciples,) also patient; stablish your 
hearts ; for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh! 
Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye 
be condemned, (or damned,) for behold, the judge 
standeth at the door! 11 He addresses them as 
though it were a matter in which they were per- 
sonally interested — a coming and judgment then 
near at hand ! He was anxious for their safety 
from that terrible calamity coming upon that na- 
tion. Another strong testimony may be found in 
1st John ii. 18 : " Little children, it is the last 



246 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

time; and as ye have heard that anti-christ shall 
come — even now, are there many anti-christs ; 
whereby we know it is the last time ! " Peter says 
in his first epistle, chapter iv. 7 : " But the end of 
all things is at hand!''' Paul writing to the He- 
brews, says, chapter x. 37 : " For yet a litttle 
while, and he that shall come, will come, and will 
not tarry ! " Now, all these testimonies, and many 
others that we might adduce, were uttered on the 
eve of that great judgment that befel the Jewish 
nation — a judgment to which our Savior, in his 
teachings, was so constantly calling their atten- 
tion, and urging upon them the duty of watchful- 
ness, that they might escape it ! Language could 
not have been employed more plain and pointed 
showing that the coming of Christ in judgment, 
upon that nation, was an event near at hand ! I 
hope Mr. Lozier will notice these testimonies, as 
upon them we are willing to rest the issue of the 
coming of Christ and the judgment under con- 
sideration. 

I shall now notice briefly the parable of the rich 
man, Luke xvi. 19-31 : u There was a certain 
rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine 
linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And 
there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, which 
was laid at his gate full of sores. And desiring to 
be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich 
man's table ; moreover, the dogs came and licked 
his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 247 

died, and was carried by angels into Abraham's 
bosom. The rich man also died and was buried : 
And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in tor- 
ments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus 
in his bosom. And he cried and said, father 
Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, 
that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and 
cool my tongue : for I am tormented in this flame. 
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in 
thy lifetime, receivedst thy good things, and like- 
wise Lazarus evil things : but now he is comforted, 
and thou art tormented. And, besides all this, 
between us and you there is a great gulf fixed : so 
that they which would pass from hence to you 
cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would 
come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee 
therefore, father, that thou wouldst send him to 
my father's house: For I have five brethren; that 
he may testify unto them, lest they also come unto 
this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, 
They have Moses and the prophets ; let them hear 
them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham : but 
if one went unto them from the dead, they w T ill 
repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not 
Moses and the prophets, neither will they be per- 
suaded, though one rose from the dead." What 
there is in this parable, in support of the proposi- 
tion, I am at a loss to conceive. Mr. Lozier did 
not attempt a criticism upon the word hell — nor is 
there a word in the parable involving the duration 



248 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

of punishment. The rich man is here repre- 
sented as being in hades, (hell) not gehenna — and 
it is contended by Dr. Campbell, and other eminent 
commentators, that gehenna, and not hades, is the 
place of future and endless torment. Also, 
that the punishment in gehenna does not take 
place until after the resurrection ! Here we have 
the rich man in hell, suffering torment, without 
ever having been raised from the dead ! There is 
no hint in the whole account, of the resurrection 
of either the rich man or Lazarus ! Even admit- 
ting that hades is a place of punishment, it is in- 
termediate between death and the resurrection, 
and therefore cannot be endless in duration. Let 
Mr. Lozier make a note of this fact ! Again, the 
rich man is not only in hades, or hell, but Abraham 
and Lazarus are in the same place ! We are not 
told that the one was in heaven, and the other in 
hell. Both are spoken of as being close together 
— within speaking distance! But are such the 
ideas of the present day? Farther — if Jesus had 
intended to inculcate the idea that hades or hell, in 
the parable before us, was a place of torment, and 
endless in duration, his apostles would doubtless 
have comprehended it. But how did they under- 
stand the Savior? Not an instance is to be found 
in all their writings, where they ever alluded to it, 
or spoke of hades, as a place of endless torment 
for any soul in God's universe. They heard this 
parable ; and if the doctrine of endless misery is 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 249 

taught in it, why do we not find it throughout 
their writings ? And it will be remembered, that 
what our Lord taught in parables, they were to pro- 
claim in language that could not be misunderstood. 
You may examine the various epistles written to 
the different churches, and in not one of them will 
you find any allusion to the parable of the rieb 
man. Could there be any apology for their si- 
lence, if the doctrine of endless punishment was 
taught in the parable? So far from this being 
the case, the most eminent and distinguished com- 
mentators that have ever written upon the Bible, 
say that hades in its original and primitive signifi- 
cation, means not a state of torment, but the state 
of death in general, without regard to the good- 
ness or badness of persons, their happiness or mis- 
ery! Wakefield says the "universal meaning of 
hades (hell) is a state of death!' 1 Dr. Campbell 
says, " In my judgment hades ought never to be 
rendered hell — at least in the sense wherein that 
word is now universally understood by christians ! " 
And yet, this is the word upon which Mr. Lozier 
predicates his argument in favor of endless pun- 
ishment. How does it happen that this is the only 
place in the Bible where hades signifies a place of 
torment? It is admitted that other passages, 
where the word occurs, teach an entirely different 
sentiment. Suppose any other important doctrine 
of the christian church were taught in only one 
passage, and that in a parable, would it afford any 



250 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

sure foundation for faith in it? We have not 
the time to give the parable a further notice — nor 
is it necessary, as Mr. Lozier has presented no ar- 
gument based upon it, involving the duration of 
punishment ! Let him notice our objections, and 
remove them if he can. 

But the time has arrived, when this debate, so 
far as I am concerned, is to to terminate. The 
Moderators will permit me to thank them for the 
fair and impartial manner in which they have pre- 
sided over our deliberations. They will ever be 
remembered with feelings of gratitude and re- 
spect. And to the audience, who have listened so 
patiently, and with so much interest, I would also 
tender my acknowledgments. Though many of 
you may differ with me in sentiment, yet I trust 
that it is an honest difference ; and that whatever 
of feeling may have been manifested in the ex- 
citement of the occasion, will not mar that har- 
mony that should ever exist among members of 
the same great family. My prayer is, that God 
may overrule our deliberations to the good of all 
assembled, and cause his truth to prosper abun- 
dantly. And to my brother, with whom I have 
held this pleasant interview, I would extend my 
cordial and fraternal greeting ; and would give 
him my right hand, as a pledge that I entertain to- 
ward him none other than the kindest feeling. 
And though we may not see eye to eye now, yet 
I have faith in the overruling providence of God, 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 251 

that he will ultimately cause all heart's to bask in 
the sunbeams of his love! My prayer is, that 
God may bless him abundantly, in every good 
word and work. 



MR. LOZIER'S CLOSING SPEECH. 

Messrs. Moderators : 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 
In closing this debate, I shall not consume any 
of the little time that is allotted me, in replying to 
what Mr. Foster has said this evening, in answer 
to the arguments that I advanced in the com- 
mencement of the debate, upon this second propo- 
sition. I do not consider any reply necessary. It 
must be apparent to every body, at a single glance, 
that if all the texts of scripture that I quoted, in 
relation to the end of the wicked, were fulfilled in 
the destruction of Jerusalem, there is not much 
left — we have no evidence whatever to prove that 
the world will ever be destroyed at all. That is a 
legitimate conclusion, from what he says, and it 
effectually does away with all his finely turned 
rhapsodies about universal happiness in a future 
state. Comment is unnecessary. The idea is so 
wild, that it only needs to be glanced at to be set 
aside as ridiculous. 



252 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

No less remarkable was the position he took in 
regard to Matt. x. 28, which I had quoted as evi- 
dence of a future state of punishment. He tells 
us there is a difference between the soul of man, 
and the spirit of man ; that the soul is only the 
same thing as the animal life, while the immortal 
principle of man's nature is the spirit. The pas- 
sage referred to (Matt. x. 28,) reads thus, as it now 
stands : " Fear not them which kill the body, but 
are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him 
which is able to destroy both soul and body in 
hell." But how will it read with Mr. Foster's 
emendation ? He says the word soul means life. 
There can be great harm, then, in substituting one 
word for the other. Let us put in life, instead of 
soul, in this passage, and we shall have it reading 
like this : "Fear not them which kill the body, but 
are not able to kill the life ; but rather fear him 
which is able to destroy both life and body in 
hell!" It would be difficult to imagine anything 
more palpably absurd. 

Mr. Foster has taken occasion several times 
during the progress of the debate, to criticize my 
deportment and demeanor. Just how much he 
relied upon that kind of thing to prove his doctrine 
of universal salvation, can only be conjectured ; but 
he seemed to think these personal reflections of 
very great consequence, to say the least. I do not 
know whether he would regard his wholesale, un- 
blushing charge of plagiarism, and his subsequent 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 253 

refusals to either retract it, or prove it to be true, 
as au instance of christian courtesy, worthy of 
universal imitation or not. If he does so regard it 
I have only to say that we differ on that, no less 
than on Universalism, and I would no sooner be 
found following in his footsteps there, than I 
would trust to his theology for salvation. Chris- 
tian courtesy is a matter that is capable of receiving 
abundant illustration from the Bible. The Phari- 
sees and Sadducees came in crowds t© John, to 
be baptized of him in Jordan ; and when John saw 
them coming, he called them a "generation of 
vipers," and asked them who had " warned them 
to flee from the wrath to come ?" That seems 
rather pointed than otherwise ; yet there is no 
statement on record, that they got mad, or berated 
John for his lack of christian courtesy, and the 
reasonable presumption is, that they quietly sub- 
mitted to be called by their right names. When 
the enemies of Christ beset him with snares, and 
sought by their craft and cunning to get him to 
say something on which they might found an ac- 
cusation against him, Christ told them, "Ye are 
of your father, the devil," and who has there been 
to find fault with Christ for telling the plain truth ? 
Even the hypocritical professors themselves had 
nothing to say on the subject, so far as we know. 
Why all this talk about christian courtesy ? 
Why Paul, when acting under the direct influence 
of the Holy Ghost, said to Elymas, the sorcerer, 



254 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

when he dared to wag his impious tongue in op- 
position to the gospel: "O, full of all subtlety and 
mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all 
righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the 
right ways of the Lord ?" What a howl of Univer- 
salist indignation would have been raised, if I had 
used as plain, pointed, searching language as that, 
in reference to his perverting and mangling the 
word of God, as he has done, all through this de- 
bate. No doubt, if I had told the plain truth 
about him and his doctrines, with a little less 
reserve even than I did, (and I confess [ have 
been tolerably plain,) he would have had a great deal 
more to say on that branch of the Universalist 
controversy, which treats of theological ethics and 
christian courtesy. I am not conscious of having 
treated Mr. Foster otherwise than as a gentleman, 
at any time during the debate. Personally, I con- 
sider him a gentleman; but with respect to his 
calling, I regard him as an unscrupulous theologi- 
cal demagogue. Personally, I shall always treat 
him with the same degree of respect that I expect 
him to manifest towards me. 

This side talk about a subject that ought never 
to have been introduced, has consumed so much 
of my time, that T shall not attempt to embrace 
in a recapitulation all the arguments advanced 
upon the affirmative side of the question ; and in- 
deed, it would be wholly unnecessary to go over 
my argument from the goodness of God, his 



ON ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 255 

justice, his holiness, and his truth; for Mr. Foster 
found it much easier to brush past it, and call it 
"cold, speculative theology," than to refute it; and 
he did not attempt a refutation. He did this, 
however : he had the effrontery to tell this audience 
at one time, that I had not produced a solitary ar- 
gument in favor of my doctrine. Whether that is 
true or not, the audience will decide. The ques- 
tion will be, whether no arguments were produced, 
or whether the trouble was, that he could not un- 
derstand them. If he did understand what was 
advanced, it would have been an easy task to 
show why and how it was not argument. 

He has made several efforts to pump up your 
sympathies to the water point, and told you about 
some woman's baby that nearly died last Sunday. 
He also drew a picture of the broken family cir- 
cles that are made by my doctrine, when, in fact, 
it is the only doctrine that gives us a remedy for 
the very evils he deplores, or that will stand the 
test of sound criticism. 

The case of Judas has given him more trouble 
than he bargained for, when he undertook to 
bring him out of that place where inspiration has 
left him. He regards him as the best one of the 
twelve — even as better than St. Peter. According 
to his view, Judas, suffocating with grief at the 
loss of his Lord, fell and burst wide open, and 
all his bowels gushed out! ki O, what a fall was 
there, my countrymen!" Did he stop to pick up 



256 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 

his bowels, and earry them to heaven with him ? 
[Hisses by the audience.] The geese, you know, 
will hiss, f 

Mr. Foster has not touched the arguments I 
have presented, but has made special pleas, and 
attempted an alibi in the face of his own rule. 
He has traveled out of his way to drag me into 
this discussion ; and if, during the debate, the 
lion's skin has frightened us, it has been stripped 
off, with the aid of the sword of the spirit, and the 
true character of the animal revealed. 






THE NEW COVENANT; 

A Large Weekly Universalist Paper* 
CHICAGO, ILL. 

Edited by D. P. and MARY A. LIVERMORE. 

This is one of the largest and best Universalist papers in the denomina- 
tion, having a very able corps of regular Contributes, among whom are 
Revs. W. S. Balch, Sumner Ellis, J. W. Hanson, H. E. Nye, J. S. Dennis, 
C. F. LeFevre, Mary Saftbrd and many others. 

On the 1st of January, the New Covenant will be much enlarged and im- 
proved. It will be issued in quarto form, and be larger than any Universal- 
ist paper now in existence. Mrs. Liveimore will then commence a serial 
story, of great interest, which will be continued through ihe greater por- 
tion of the year. Price §2.50 per year. 

». P» LIVERMORE, 

CHICAGO, ILL. 

BOOKS! BOOKS!! BOOKS!!! 

A large assortment of Universalist and Sunday School Books, constantly 
on hand at the New Covenant Office, Chicago, 111. 

All cash orders will be promptly filled, at the lowest price of the market. 
This establishment has been in existence for nearly twenty years, and we 
solicit the patronage of the Universalist public. 

D. P. EIVERMORE, 

CHICAGO, ILL. 

PROOF-TEXTS 
Of Endless Punishment Explained, 

384 PAGES. 
By I>. P. Liivermore, Chicago, 111. 

This is an invaluable book, containing a careful examination of all the 
texts quoted to prove tlie doctrine of endless punishment : such as : " The 
wicked shall be turned into hell." "In hell he lifted up his eyes, being in 
torment." "These shall go away into everlasting punishment." "It is 
a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." "Our God is a 
consuming fire." 

This is the only book that carefully considers the case of the murderer 
and suicide, showing how they are punished and saved. 

Price $1.25. Postage (20) added when sent by mail. For sale at New 
Covenant Office, Chicago. 

». P. LIVERMORE. 

CHICAGO, ILL. 



-wiestieir.in- 

urasm church and mm mm 

Book Establishment, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Williamson & Cantwell, publishers of the ''Star in the West," are now 
the owners of the Stereotype plates of the following Universalist Books, 
and will hereafter publish thera at their olBce in Cincinnati : 

WILLIAMSON'S WORKS. 

ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY. In a Series of Discourses. By I. 
D. Williamson, D. D. ISmo. 252 pages. Price 05 cents. 

EXPOSITION AND DEFENCE of Universa,ism. In a Series of Discour- 
ses. By I. D. Williamson, D. D. 18mo. Price 65 cents. 

ENDLESS MISERY Examined and Refuted. By I. D. Williamson, D. D. 
12mo. 2l(j pages. Price 75 cents. 

SERMONS FOR THE PEOPLE. By I. D. Williamson, D. D. 18mo. 

THE PHILOSOPHY OF UNIVERSALISM ; or Reasons for our Faith. By 
I. D. Williamson, D. D. Paper Covers. 96 pages. Price 35 cents. 

CHAPIFS WORKS. 

CHRISTIANITY THE PERFECTION OF TRUE MANLINESS. By E. 
H. Chapin, D. D. 12mo. Price 85 cents. 

MORAL ASPECTS OF CITY LIFE. A Series of Lectures. By E. H. 
CHAPIN, D. D. 12 mo. Price 85 cuts. 

SELECT SERMONS, preached in the Broadway Church. By E. H. Cha- 
pin, D. D. 12m o. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

SMITH ON DIVINE GOVERNMENT. Bv T. Southwood Smith, M. D. 
12mo. 374 pages. Price $1.25. 

ROGERS' PRO AND CON OF UNIVERSALISM. By George Rogers. 12mo. 
351) pages. Price $1.25 

PAGAN ORIGIN OF PARTI ALIST DOCTRINES. By John Claudius 
Pitrat. 12mo. 246 pages. Price 75 cents. 

PSALMS AND HYMNS AND SPIRITUAL SONGS. Compiled for the 
use of Universalist Churches, Associations, and Social Meetings. Third 
Edition. lGrno. Cloth, 191 pages. Price $4.50 per dozen. 

BROOKS' PRACTICAL POWER OF UNIVERSALISM. In a Series of Dis- 
courses. By Ellindge Gerry Brooks. 12mo. 350 pages. Price §1.25. 

ELY AND THOMAS' THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION on Universalism 
and Endless Punishment. ISmo. 288 pages. Price 05 cents. 

BALCH'S CLASS BOOK. A Class Book for Sunday Schools By Rev. W. 
S. Balch. Price $1.25 per dozen. 

JUVENILES. 

THE MERCHANT'S WIDOW. By Mrs. C. M. Sawyer. ISmo. Gilt back. 
Price (50 cents. 

LOUISA MURRAY. By Mrs. F. M. Baker. 18 mo. Gilt back. Price 60 eta. 

THE FLOWER BASKET. Translated from the German. By. T. J. Saw- 
yer, D. D. 18 mo. Gilt back. Price 60 cents. 

QUEEN LOVE AND THE FARIES. 18mo. Price 35 cents. 

BEECHDALE. By Kate Carltou. 18mo. Price 60 cents. 
Also on hand, and for sale as above, wholesale and retail, 

ALL THE UNIVERSALIST BOOKS IN THE MARKET, 

Including Class Books, Catechisms, and a.l Instruction Books for our Sun- 
day Schools. JUVENILE BOOKS, 

Suitable for Universalist Sunday School Libraries, 
Constantly on hand in quantities sufficient to meet the wants of our West- 
ern Schools. Great care is exercised in the selection of these books, and all 
orders will be tilled at a discount of Twenty-rive per cent, from retail price. 
Societies or individuals sending their orders as above, may depend on re- 
ceiving their books at the very lowest prices, with the privilege of exchang- 
ing such as may not suit them. Address all orders, 

WILLIAMSON «fc CAXTWELL, Cin. O. 



THE STAR IN THE WEST, 

A LARGE QUARTO WEEKLY UNIVERSALIST PAPER. Published 
by WILLIAMSON & CANTWELL, Cin., O. $2.50 a year in adranee. 



THE NEW COVENANT; 

A Large Weekly Universalist Paper* 



CHICAGO, ILL. 



Edited by ». P. and MARY A. LIVEBMORE. 

This is one of the largest and best Universalist papers in the denomina- 
tion, having a very able corps of regular Contributes, among whom are 
Revs. W. S. Balch, Sumner Ellis, J. W. Hanson, H. R. Nye, J. S. Denuis, 
C F. LeFevre, Mary Safiord and many others. 

On the 1st of January, the New Covenant will be much enlarged and im- 
proved. It will be issued in quarto form, and be larger than any Universal- 
ist paper now in existence. Mrs. Liveiniore will tlien commence a serial 
story, of great interest, which will be continued through the greater por- 
tion of the year. Price §2.50 per year. 

». P. EIVERMORE, 

CHICAGO, ILL. 

BOOKS! BOOKS!! BOOKS!!! 

A large assortment of Universalist and Sunday School Books, constantly 
on hand at the New Covenant Office, Chicago, 111. 

All cash orders will be promptly filled, at the lowest price of th9 market. 
This establishment has been in existence for nearly twenty years, and we 
solicit the patronage of the Universalist public. 

». P. LITERMORE, 

CHICAGO, ILL. 



PROOF-TEXTS 
Of Endless Punishment Explained* 

384 PAGES. 
By I>. P. Iiivermore, Chicago, 111. 

This is an invaluable book, containing a careful examination of all the 
texts quoted to prove the doctrine of endless punishment : sucli as : " The 
\vicked sliall be turned into hell." " In hell he lifted up his eyes, being in 
torment." "These shall go away into everlasting punishment." "It is 
a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." "Our God is a 
consuming fire." 

This is the only book that carefully considers the case of the murderer 
and suicide, showing how they are punished and saved. 

Price 81.25. Postage (20) added when sent by mail. For 6ale at New 
Covenant Office, Chicago. 

». P. EIVERMORE, 

CHICAGO, ILL. 



-wiESTEieisr 

, ruunr 

Book Establishment, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Williamson & Cantwell, publishers of the "Star in the West," are now 
the owners of the Stereotype plates of the following Universalist Books, 
and will hereafter publish them at their office in Cincinnati : 

-WILLIAMSON'S WORKS. 

ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY. In a Series of Discourses. By I. 
D. Williamson, D. D. 18mo. 252 pages. Price 65 cents. 

EXPOSITION AND DEFENCE of Universa.ism. In a Series of Discour- 
ses. By I. D. Williamson, D. D. 18nio. Price 05 cents. 

ENDLESS MISERY Examined and Refuted. By I. D. Williamson, D. D. 
12mo. 216 pages. Price 75 cents. 

SERMONS FOR THE PEOPLE. By I. D. Williamson, D. D. 18mo. 

THE PHILOSOPHY OF UNIVERSALISM ; or Reasons for our Faith. By 
I. D. Williamson, D. D. Paper Covers. 96 pages. Price 35 cents. 

CHAPIN'S WORKS. 

CHRISTIANITY THE PERFECTION OF TRUE MANLINESS. By E. 
H. Chapiu, D. D. 12mo. Price 85 cents. 

MORAL ASPECTS OF CITY LIFE. A Series of Lectures. By E. H. 
CHAPIN, D. D. 12 mo. Price 85 cents. 

SELECT SERMONS, preached in the Broadway Church. By E. H. Cha- 
pin, D. D. 12mo. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

SMITH ON DIVINE GOVERNMENT. By T. Southwood Smith, M. D. 
12mo. 374-pages. Price $1.25. 

ROGERS' PRO AND CON OF UNIVERSALISM. By George Rogers. 12mo. 
356 pages. Price $1.25 

PAGAN ORIGIN OF PARTIALIST DOCTRINES. By John Claudius 
Pitrat. 12mo. 246 pages. Price 75 cents. 

PSALMS AND HYMNS AND SPIRITUAL SONGS. Compiled for the 
use of Universalist Churches, Associations, and Social Meetings. Third 
Edition. 16mo. Cloth, 191 pages. Price $4.50 per dozen. 

BROOKS' PRACTICAL POWER OF UNIVERSALISM. In a Series of Dis- 
courses. By Elhridge Gerry Brooks. 12mo. 350 pa lies. Price $1.25. 

ELY AND THOMAS' THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION on Universalism 
and Endless Punishment. 18mo. 286 pages. Price 65 ceuts. 

BALCH'S CLASS BOOK. A Class Book for Sunday Schools By Rev. W. 
S. Balch. Price Si. 25 per dozen. 

JUVENILES. 

THE MERCHANT'S WIDOW. By Mrs. C. M. Sawyer. ISmo. Gilt back. 
Price 60 cents. 

LOUISA .MURRAY. By Mrs. F. M. Baker. 18 mo. Gilt back. Price 60 cts. 

THE FLOWER BASKET. Translated from the German. By. T. J. Saw- 
yer, D. D. 18 mo. Gilt back. Price 60 cents. 

QUEEN LOVE AND THE FARIES. 18mo. Price 35 cents. 

BEECHDALE. By Kate Carltou. ISmo. Price (it) cents. 
Also on hand, and for sale as above, wholesale and retail, 

ALL THE UNIVERSALIST BOOKS IN THE MARKET, 

Including Class Books, Catechisms, and a.l Instruction Books for our Sun- 
day Schools. JUVENILE BOOKS, 

Suitable for Universalist Sunday School Libraries, 
Constantly on hand in quantities sufficient, to meet the wants of our West- 
ern Sclioois. Great care is exercised in the selection of these books, and all 
orders will be tilled at a discount of Twenty-five per cent, from retail price. 
Societies or individuals Bending their orders as above, may depend on re- 
ceiving their books at the very lowest prices, with the privilege of exchang- 
ing such as may not 6iiit them. Address all orders, 

WILLIAMSON «fc CANTWELL* Cin. O. 



THE STAR IN THE WEST, 

A LARGE QUARTO WEEKLY UNIVERSALIS! PAPER. Published 
by WILLIAMSON & CANTWELL, Cin.. O. $2. 50a year in advance. 



